Re: [FairfieldLife] Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
[FairfieldLife] For Turq: New movie by Lars von Trier -
Nymphomania. Have you seen it? What did you think?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Those of you in the US about to celebrate Columbus Day...
Whoa, really a different version of things. I guess most of our history books need rewriting - probably all over the world, given how we humans like "nice" stories. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ...read this excellently-researched strip by The Oatmeal first. Even when it starts getting a little too depressing for you, finding out who Christopher Columbus *really* was and what he did, keep reading to the end. Because then you'll want to change the name of the Federal holiday to Bartolomé Day, too. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Dear Prudence – an i nterview with Prudence Farrow
[FairfieldLife] RE: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Hi BW, yes, I saw that article. Read quickly as is my tendency. Sometimes > I think I'm using a VERY small part of my brain here on FFL. Sometimes I > think I'm using too much! Wonder how that combo of thoughts would look on > MRI. > > I was a Lit major in undergrad and then TV/Film in grad school. Now can't > even imagine reading or watching for anything other than pleasure. But, > having said that, it seems deeply imbued in my perceiving such to notice > patterns, themes, overarching tones. Dare I say that I attribute this to my > jyotish chart?! > > I think it would be fascinating to do similar research on musicians. I read > somewhere, not recently, that overall, musicians tend to live longer. Don't > remember other details. Not my strong suit to do so. But wanted to > mention it anyway. And wonder if maybe they, more than any other artists, > combine pleasure and work. Hmmm, now that I think of it, I'd put poets in > this category too. Probably missing merudanda more than is reasonable. > > > Yes, I take into account that someone might be accustomed to close reading. > And it makes sense to me that that trait would spill over into writing. > Even into other activities. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention > again. Can aim for compassion. As I anticipate a new posting week (-: > > Also want to say that I appreciate your being somewhat of a good sport about > the Stand Up Comedy Awards, etc. > > > PS I enjoyed both reading your post and replying to it. win win, my > favorite > > > > From: turquoiseb > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:10 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the > Church of $cientology > > >  > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence > > distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the > > import of my complete thought as contained in the > > whole paragraph. > > Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but > tripping on what you said above, I thought I > should draw your attention to a post I made > here recently entitled "This is your brain on > reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously." > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 > > It details some fascinating research being done > on people to determine what is going on in their > brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the > sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is > called "close reading," as if they have to report > on what they're reading later in an essay about it. > The researchers, watching the brains of people > through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered > that very different parts of the brain are being > used, depending on whether one is reading for > pleasure, or doing "close reading." > > Riffing on what you say above, is it possible > that a certain person is using different parts > of their brain when reading your posts than you > used when writing them? > > I find this an interesting question when applied > to this forum. "Different strokes for different > folks" turns out to be true even in the brain, > and at different times, depending on the *intent* > with which we read. Two people could read the > same piece of literature -- in the experiments, > passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very > different things from them. That's not a surprise, > of course, chances are we *all* would see the > same passages slightly differently. *However*, > the new information from these studies is that > the *same* person could view and interpret > these passages completely differently, depend- > ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, > or "for work." > > Taking a profession completely at random, consider > the case of a professional editor. Their day job > is parsing other people's writing, *looking for > nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, > parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- > ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. > And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling > could render an entire work unworthy of publication, > and thus of being taken seriously. > > Now consider another random profession, say a > person who makes their living as a musician and > an educator. Such a person might have said many > times that they read the posts on FFL -- and > write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* > tend to parse them carefully, looking for things > "not right" in them; instead they might be looking > for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after > all, of "reading for pleasure." > > These two types of people, conditioned by years > of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, > might be using entirely different parts of their > brains while reading, and as a resu
[FairfieldLife] Re: Arab Spring Turns Against the US to Susan
I did not know you were so knowledgable. If you get the software and can get a birth date for FFL, that will be fun. And that being more at peace with things when you have another perspective is just powerful. Good stuff. Maybe that is one value of jyotish - on the way to awakening it helps by getting the ego to step back a few steps. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Hi Susan I did a quick look at the ephemeris but of course need software to > get exact rising sign and moon, both which change very quickly. I've asked > my ex if he still has the software. Maybe he'll do it for us. He's 2 > hours behind and had a late night last night so I might not hear for a > while. And I'm not as good at interpretation as John obviously is. But > will bung along whatever seems useful. > > > BTW, both the malefics, Mars and Saturn were aspecting my seventh house of > relationships last week. Helps me understand what happened from another > perspective. And be more at peace with it. Some huge karmic debts being > repaid. Probably a little easier than in person. > > > > From: wayback71 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:08 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Arab Spring Turns Against the US to John > > >  > Hey Share, I think the idea of checking on the jyotish of FFL is interesting. > I actually "believe" in jyotish having had several experiences where it is > so accurate that it makes my hair stand on end. Anyway, I would love to > know what jyotish says about FFL. > > Of course, we could then get into the idea that we on FFL are all just agents > of changes in the planets and stars. Barry, listen up here: free will or > not? We have agreed to disagree on that one, so no worries. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Hi John, do you have software to construct jyotish charts?àI made a > > joke, I think to Susan, about seeing if FFL chart changed 5 or 6 years ago > > when she perceived a change in the forum.àAnyway here's the info taken > > from post 0: > > > > Sept 1, 2001, 2:24 pm, Fairfield, IAàthough I'm assuming the > > latter.à> > > > > > Anyway, Sun in its own sign.àAlready explains a lot. > > > > > > > > > > From: John > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:50 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Arab Spring Turns Against the US to John > > > > > > à> > Share, > > > > In the US chart, the Moon is placed in Aquarius and Libra is the 9th house, > > signifying overseas or foreign lands, from the Moon position. Thus, we > > find the attack of American embassies in foreign lands. > > > > In jyotish, the analysis of the chart requires the assessment of the > > various ascendants or lagnas aside from the usual rising sign, which is > > Sagittarius for the USA. > > > > JR > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, JR, I remembered that you said Sag is lagna.ÃâàDon't know > > > enough jyotish to make connection between 4th house and 11th.Ãâà> > > Makes sense.Ãâà> > > > > > What might be significator that it's happening overseas rather than at > > > home?Ãâà> > > > > > Share > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: John > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:39 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Arab Spring Turns Against the US to John > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > Share, > > > > > > The current troubles are still due to the malefic conjunction of Mars and > > > Saturn in Libra. In the US chart, Libra is the 8th house (a significator > > > for death) from Pisces, which represents the American homes or property. > > > Thus, we're finding that the American embassies overseas are being > > > attacked and American citizens working there are killed or harassed. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > > > > > What's happening in the US chart?ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàI've read that > > > > Mars is aspecting Jupiter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: John > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:47 AM > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Arab Spring Turns Against the US > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > It smells like Al Qaeda is involved in this attack in Yemen and Libya. > > > > They may be paying off protestors to create havoc in American embassies > > > > in the Middle East. > > > > > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/yemeni-protesters-storm-u-embassy-sanaa-witnesses-085414831.html > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Arab Spring Turns Against the US to John
Hey Share, I think the idea of checking on the jyotish of FFL is interesting. I actually "believe" in jyotish having had several experiences where it is so accurate that it makes my hair stand on end. Anyway, I would love to know what jyotish says about FFL. Of course, we could then get into the idea that we on FFL are all just agents of changes in the planets and stars. Barry, listen up here: free will or not? We have agreed to disagree on that one, so no worries. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Hi John, do you have software to construct jyotish charts? I made a joke, I > think to Susan, about seeing if FFL chart changed 5 or 6 years ago when she > perceived a change in the forum. Anyway here's the info taken from post 0: > > Sept 1, 2001, 2:24 pm, Fairfield, IA though I'm assuming the latter. > > > Anyway, Sun in its own sign. Already explains a lot. > > > > > From: John > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:50 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Arab Spring Turns Against the US to John > > >  > Share, > > In the US chart, the Moon is placed in Aquarius and Libra is the 9th house, > signifying overseas or foreign lands, from the Moon position. Thus, we find > the attack of American embassies in foreign lands. > > In jyotish, the analysis of the chart requires the assessment of the various > ascendants or lagnas aside from the usual rising sign, which is Sagittarius > for the USA. > > JR > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Thanks, JR, I remembered that you said Sag is lagna.àDon't know enough > > jyotish to make connection between 4th house and 11th.àMakes sense.à> > > > What might be significator that it's happening overseas rather than at > > home?à> > > > Share > > > > > > > > > > From: John > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:39 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Arab Spring Turns Against the US to John > > > > > > à> > Share, > > > > The current troubles are still due to the malefic conjunction of Mars and > > Saturn in Libra. In the US chart, Libra is the 8th house (a significator > > for death) from Pisces, which represents the American homes or property. > > Thus, we're finding that the American embassies overseas are being attacked > > and American citizens working there are killed or harassed. > > > > JR > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > > > What's happening in the US chart?ÃâàI've read that Mars is > > > aspecting Jupiter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: John > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:47 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Arab Spring Turns Against the US > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > It smells like Al Qaeda is involved in this attack in Yemen and Libya. > > > They may be paying off protestors to create havoc in American embassies > > > in the Middle East. > > > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/yemeni-protesters-storm-u-embassy-sanaa-witnesses-085414831.html > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Is Jesus=God?
Hey Emily, I wrote a post in reply to you and did not send it until this afternoon. Post #31992o. It was in response to your question about what I believe when I am not in my "believing in spirituality mode." Delayed reply, sorry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > Hm.when you are not in your "believing in spirituality mode", what do > you think? Â Then, I think that our religious and spiritual beliefs are a way of describing experiences that happen in the brain and feel like they are outside of us, feel like they point to something bigger and meaningful and orderly. Our beliefs accurately describe the special experiences of generations and generations of people. And we built up belief systems around those experiences - and tossed in some wishful thinking, too. I think believing in some of these religions can make us feel better, give us hope, comfort us in the face of the possibility that there is nothing after the body and brain die. So Jesus could have been enlightened and in touch with his God (internally) and feel one with God, and have incredibly powerful energy or darshan that he radiated, but this might not mean that there is more to him that lives after he dies, only that he had a nervous system that functioned in a special way that just relatively few humans have had happen. This does not mean that there is no such thing as enlightenment, but that perhaps enlightenment is a style of brain functioning, that's it. I prefer the more spiritual and religious way of looking at life and feel better and happier when I think like that. I like to believe that enlightenment is a window into a bigger Reality. That there is more than the brain generating consciousness. That, instead, consciousness generates everything. I just sometimes have some doubts. > > > > From: Susan > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:08 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > > > > > "I think Yogananda wrote some long translations and commentary of the Gita > > from a Christian perspective, explaining the similarities between > > Hinduism/Gita and Christianity, what the terms in the Bible really mean in > > Hindu terms etc. Yogananda claimed to see Jesus and talk with him. He was > > devoted to Jesus and saw him as a realized Master." > > > > > > This is completely consistent with my premise that there are many prophets, > > but only one ultimate "God/Energy/Universe." ÃÂ Tee Hee. ÃÂ > > When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you! Reading > Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing. > > > > > > From: Susan > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > > > > > I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative. ÃÂ > > > > > > "I am not sure about this.ÃÂ For one thing, don't Christians take their > > > Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?ÃÂ What do you think they > > > take him as? > > > > One of 3 different manifestations of the Divine: God (unmanifest), the > > earthy/human manifestation is the Son, or Jesus, and the Holy Spirit/Holy > > Ghost, which is not manifest like Jesus but is the active agent of God in > > the universe and on earth.ÃÂ All are equal aspects of the Divine, with God > > as the more Unbounded/Unmanifest version. Jesus had to go thru an evolution > > process to realize his true nature as the Son, though. > > > > That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the Christians see > > him more than a prophet, but equal to God.ÃÂ If you think of God more in > > the Eastern way, which means not a personal God, then it is easier to see > > how a man can express that he is equal to God, that is, if he now locates > > his identity with the principle of consciousness itself.ÃÂ If someone has > > defeated the ego, one's limited imperfections, and is now completely clear > > and open to the transcendent, can he not say he IS God, in essence? "ÃÂ > > > > Most mainstream Christians would agree with this understanding, that Jesus, > > even while representing God on earth, was also human and had to go thru > > typical human suffering and growth until he became pure enough to realize > > his divinity. Still, they think of Jesus as a special human since he is > > God's Son and his personal mission was to send a message about God to > > humanity. And somehow (can't get this straight) his death wiped out > > humanity's sins, or wiped out that bad karma for all believers in Jesus. > > > > > ÃÂ I was taught about the "divine right of Kings" in the US education > > > system." ÃÂ ~Avram3 > > > > > > Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God. > > > > I think most evangelicals feel that if you don't accept Jesus as your > > savior and as the Son of God, then you won't be "saved" from all you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apologies from Robin and Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > I will admit that I was talking on the phone while reading > > > > FFL last night - a "dangerous" thing to do if you take this > > > > seriously and want to be able to defend yourself here. > > > > Anyway, I gather I was responding to a single post of > > > > Emily's when apparently I had missed an earlier one. > > > > > > Interesting, because last night you claimed to have read > > > Emily's earlier post too: > > > > > > == > > > I did read Emily's post. > > > > Yes, I did write that I had read Emily's post, but I was > > referring to the one post of hers I had read, not the prior > > one that I was not aware of. > > > Oh, for chrissakes, Susan, get real! The post you > were responding to *called to your attention exactly > that prior post*. What did you think "Read Emily's > post which came before this one" meant? How is one > to interpret "I did read Emily's post" as referring > to anything other than that prior post you'd just > been told to read? > > Look down here at what Robin had written that you > were responding to--that you quoted in your post-- > the second sentence (I put it in capital letters > so you won't miss it): > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > You have the strangest compulsions, Susan. READ EMILY'S > > > > POST WHICH CAME BEFORE THIS ONE. Answer that. You're a > > > > funny lady. But you're right: 90% does it. I feel this > > > > right in my bones. Casey hit a home run. > > > And you responded: "I read Emily's post." > > Later, in response to me, you wrote, "I read the posts" > (plural). Yes, the posts (plural) by other people that led up to Emily's single post to which I responded (and which she fully understood). You see, I did read other people's posts, and then 1 by Emily to which I responded. Is that clear now? Can you see how that might happen? > > Are you on the telephone now as you're reading and > responding? It seems like you must be, because you > sure aren't paying attention. Wow, this should be the worst problem in my life, and yours too. Seriously. Judy, I don't care about this now. And since I was distracted on the phone last night - and apparently missed a post, I don't care about that either, nor do I feel guilty or as if I made a big mistake. I made a brief post in response to few words in a post by Emily. Emily was fine with it (as she wrote), and so am I. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey now, I'm standing up for Curtis, aren't I :) It's O.K. > > > > > > Curtis...your reputation is safe. No worries. > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Emily, and Curtis, on this. Altho most people > > > > > won't bother to spend a minute reading this argumentative, > > > > > odd stuff (good for them!), my guess is that if they did, > > > > > about 99% would side with Curtis. Thing is, the other 1% > > > > > are the ones making the fuss, the noise. > > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319735 > > > > > > And then you denied you did any "selective reading": > > > > > > = > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey now, I'm standing up for Curtis, aren't I :) It's O.K. > > > > > > Curtis...your reputation is safe. No worries. > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Emily, and Curtis, on this. Altho most people > > > > > won't bother to spend a minute reading this argumentative, > > > > > odd stuff (good for them!), my guess is that if they did, > > > > > about 99% would side with Curtis. Thing is, the other 1% > > > > > are the ones making the fuss, the noise. > > > > > > > > JESUS. Poor Susan! Maybe she should give a course in > > > > selective reading. > > > > > > Nothing selective about my reading on this. I read the posts. > > > I just don't "side" with you, which is a very different thing > > > than selective reading. > > > === > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319736 > > > > > > And of course my comment had zero to do with whether you > > > were on *my* side. My point was that you read Emily's > > > second post and assumed, incorrectly, that *she* was siding > > > with Curtis. But you had just got
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eyewitness accounts of levitation that ring true
Barry, when you saw Lenz levite 1. had you heard before that he did this sort of thing? 2. can you recall if you and others present all described seeing exactly the same thing, including small variations, without cuing each other and leading each other? In other words, did the reports of individuals match exactly without talking to each other or anyone about the experience first? So - it you had all been asked to write about what you saw before saying a word to each other, would those descriptions match? 3. what other out of the ordinary experiences like levitation did you witness with him? If this happened now, people would whip out their phones and begin photographing him. Did people try to take photos of these events with regular cameras? What was Rama's explanation for what was going on? Did any of his students develop the same levitation ability? What that part of the training he gave? Did Lenz himself have training in magic/sleight of hand? I wonder what someone like Ricky Jay would say about this - if he could provide an explanation of how you go about appearing to levitate in the desert in front of hundreds. How far off the ground did he appear to go? I think I recall a friend saying he was in the clouds, or else that he moved clouds. To me, the alternate reality theory sounds likely - kind of explains a lot we can't explain - ghosts, angels, levitation and other "miracles." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" fintlewoodlewix@ > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://www.miraclesofthesaints.com/2010/10/levitation-and-ecstatic-fligh\ > ts-in.html > > > > > > It's just a shame that they seem to have stopped just before > > > the invention of cinema. > > > > I am so glad that I didn't offer my wordy response before you nailed > everything > > I could have said in just sixteen words! > > Just to pour gasoline on already-roaring flames, and to save a certain > someone from bringing it up in an attempt to demonize me :-), I shall > weigh in on the subject of levitation from a unique point of view. Other > than Nabby, whose credibility I submit is in the same ballpark as Rush > Limbaugh's or Paul Ryan's, I think I'm the only person here who has > claimed to have witnessed real, hang-there-in-mid-air levitation. > > And I have. Not once, but dozens of times, over a period of 14 years. > And it wasn't only me. Often I was one of a group of 200-500 students > watching the guy do this, in various locations, ranging from out in the > desert in the middle of the night to the Los Angeles Convention Center > to Carnegie Hall. In those environments, Rama - Frederick Lenz didn't > hop on his butt like a frog, he just lifted gently up off of the sofa or > the sand he was sitting on or standing on, and hovered there in mid-air > in exactly the way that a brick doesn't. For extended periods of time -- > minutes, not seconds. > > That said, I can tell you nothing whatsoever about the nature of what it > was that I saw other than I and others saw it. > > I do not know whether video or movie cameras trained on the guy as he > lifted off would have captured it; I strongly suspect that they would > not have. If I had to speculate, I would suspect that the phenomenon we > witnessed was -- if it truly existed -- taking place on an alternate > level of reality that might not have been captured by technology on this > level of reality. > > I am equally comfortable with the notion that it didn't really exist at > all, but that brings up more unanswerable questions. I don't know about > you, but I have a harder time with the notion that someone can hypnotize > 200-500 people at a time into seeing the same thing -- *without ever > pre-announcing what it was that they were going to see* -- less > believable than that something was actually happening. Something else. > > WHAT that something else was, I have no idea. > > Do I feel somewhat uncomfortable saying this? You betcha. I share almost > all of Curtis and salyavin's skepticism about such things. But I really > *did* see this shit. Over and over and over, for an extended period of > time. > > Am I supposed to *deny* that I saw it, or come up with some convenient > skeptic's "explanation" for what it was I and hundreds of others saw? > That, to me, would be the "easy path," a cop-out. > > I *did* see it. I have NO FUCKING IDEA what exactly it was that I saw, > only that I saw it. Many times. > > Lemme tell you, that is a great deal harder to live with than those who > think that witnessing levitation would be a Good Thing That Would Make > Their Incarnation might think. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: #f@ckyouwashington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans wrote: > > I've said for a long time that it is corporate that's running the show. >  While I believe Obama thought he could usher in a more just and robust > America, he wasn't able to and is now another pawn taking directions from the > big Democratic party doners.  > However, he faced unbelievable odds...Bush and the Republicans left this > country in tatters after inheriting the strongest federal balance sheet in > postwar history.  I have no understanding of how anyone could trust that > agenda, which is why, when I look at the alternative to Obama, I get even > more worried.  > All politicians give us BS in their speeches - I can't tolerate listening to > any of them on either side.  I think we need to get a message to the > Democratic Party and our individual reps...they are just as bad right now in > using sensationalism and self-righteousness to drum up money as the other > side...two sides of the same coin.  It's a completely flawed system. Maybe > there is value in a 4th party, I don't know. > Until we, the people, address corporate america and demand that they work for > us and not the other way around, we are screwed.  How do we do this?  I'd > like to hear some ideas. Denise, I have been thinking about your question and just heard about this book by Ralph Nader, Only the Rich Can Save Us. The Amazon summary sounds fascinating. His basic positionis that the superrich (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc) have the means and power to make changes in various parts of our society (refomr of health care, education, government) if they decide to do so. Check it out if it sounds of interest to you. > Of course, Obama may be deciding that his life is more importantremember > what happens to those who are too outspoken and gain too much influence. >  While I have no proof of course.I always think about JFK, Bobby > Kennedy, and MLK.  > > --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Tom Pall wrote: > > From: Tom Pall > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] #f@ckyouwashington > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 4:36 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:40 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > We don't need a 3rd party.  We need to primary Obama with a Democrat who > > will stand up and say Obama doesn't represent the party of FDR, he > > represents the blood suckers on Wall Street. Bernie Sanders agrees we > > should primary Obama hoping it would push Obama further to the left. It's > > not going to happen. Obama has a lock on plenty of money for a campaign > > that would (if 2008 is any lesson) trash the reputation of the challenger, > > have the DNC cheat for him and play the race card for good measure. Obama > > is on the right, has always been on the right and will stay on the right > > regardless of a primary. > > > > > > The debt ceiling debate is just kabuki to make the rubes believe that the > > only choice, Flimflam Man has to save the county from defaulting on its > > debt is sacrifice Social Security and Medicare when in truth that is > > exactly what Obama was hired to do. > > > > > > If Obama were a Democrat, he would have stopped all the Republican crazy > > talk about the debt ceiling by simply saying he would invoke the 14th > > Amendment. Bill Clinton said he would invoke the constitutional option to > > raise the debt ceiling "without hesitation, and force the courts to stop > > me" in order to prevent a default. Now, there's a president with some balls. > > > > > > http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/19/bill-clinton-says-he-would-use-the-14th-amendment/ > > > > > > For the past few weeks, Obama has shown no interest in involving Democrats > > in "negotiating" with Boehner, Cantor or McConnell because he couldn't have > > gotten away with unilaterally offering up programs to help the poor and > > women. Obama has continually lied about the strength and solvency of the > > social safety net and now he has accomplished what George W. Bush and every > > Republican before him could only dream of doing, destroy FDR's New Deal. > > > > > > > What is going on here? I've been complaining about a lack of follow > > through, a lack of leadership.Yes, we're going to close GITMO, > > yes, gays in the military and so on yet when in office it's OK, at > > least two full scale wars are great, and we'll involve ourselves in > > civil wars as we do in Libya. It's Pax Americana all over again. We > > can't cut defense spending because when Obama became president he was > > born again and saw how important being involved in everybody else's > > life is good. Then there's the gay thing. Another president who > > cared would have used his powers as Commander in Chief. Another > > president would have said yes, I've got a duty to uphold the way, but > > I'm
[FairfieldLife] Re: #f@ckyouwashington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans wrote: > > I've said for a long time that it is corporate that's running the show. >  While I believe Obama thought he could usher in a more just and robust > America, he wasn't able to and is now another pawn taking directions from the > big Democratic party doners.  > However, he faced unbelievable odds...Bush and the Republicans left this > country in tatters after inheriting the strongest federal balance sheet in > postwar history.  I have no understanding of how anyone could trust that > agenda, which is why, when I look at the alternative to Obama, I get even > more worried.  > All politicians give us BS in their speeches - I can't tolerate listening to > any of them on either side.  I think we need to get a message to the > Democratic Party and our individual reps...they are just as bad right now in > using sensationalism and self-righteousness to drum up money as the other > side...two sides of the same coin.  It's a completely flawed system. Maybe > there is value in a 4th party, I don't know. > Until we, the people, address corporate america and demand that they work for > us and not the other way around, we are screwed.  How do we do this?  I'd > like to hear some ideas. > Of course, Obama may be deciding that his life is more important I think Obama spent his entire life compromising and fitting in so he could get a good education, achieve and do something significant with his life. Compromising is his entrenched way of being. Times now might be calling for more forcefulness than he has. remember what happens to those who are too outspoken and gain too much influence.  While I have no proof of course.I always think about JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and MLK.  > > --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Tom Pall wrote: > > From: Tom Pall > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] #f@ckyouwashington > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 4:36 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:40 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > We don't need a 3rd party.  We need to primary Obama with a Democrat who > > will stand up and say Obama doesn't represent the party of FDR, he > > represents the blood suckers on Wall Street. Bernie Sanders agrees we > > should primary Obama hoping it would push Obama further to the left. It's > > not going to happen. Obama has a lock on plenty of money for a campaign > > that would (if 2008 is any lesson) trash the reputation of the challenger, > > have the DNC cheat for him and play the race card for good measure. Obama > > is on the right, has always been on the right and will stay on the right > > regardless of a primary. > > > > > > The debt ceiling debate is just kabuki to make the rubes believe that the > > only choice, Flimflam Man has to save the county from defaulting on its > > debt is sacrifice Social Security and Medicare when in truth that is > > exactly what Obama was hired to do. > > > > > > If Obama were a Democrat, he would have stopped all the Republican crazy > > talk about the debt ceiling by simply saying he would invoke the 14th > > Amendment. Bill Clinton said he would invoke the constitutional option to > > raise the debt ceiling "without hesitation, and force the courts to stop > > me" in order to prevent a default. Now, there's a president with some balls. > > > > > > http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/19/bill-clinton-says-he-would-use-the-14th-amendment/ > > > > > > For the past few weeks, Obama has shown no interest in involving Democrats > > in "negotiating" with Boehner, Cantor or McConnell because he couldn't have > > gotten away with unilaterally offering up programs to help the poor and > > women. Obama has continually lied about the strength and solvency of the > > social safety net and now he has accomplished what George W. Bush and every > > Republican before him could only dream of doing, destroy FDR's New Deal. > > > > > > > What is going on here? I've been complaining about a lack of follow > > through, a lack of leadership.Yes, we're going to close GITMO, > > yes, gays in the military and so on yet when in office it's OK, at > > least two full scale wars are great, and we'll involve ourselves in > > civil wars as we do in Libya. It's Pax Americana all over again. We > > can't cut defense spending because when Obama became president he was > > born again and saw how important being involved in everybody else's > > life is good. Then there's the gay thing. Another president who > > cared would have used his powers as Commander in Chief. Another > > president would have said yes, I've got a duty to uphold the way, but > > I'm going to shirk my duty and tell Justice to lay off the DOM law. > > I've wondered where the leadership's been. Why not stand up against > > the Repubs. FDR did, LBJ did, Bil
[FairfieldLife] Re: #f@ckyouwashington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans wrote: > > I've said for a long time that it is corporate that's running the show. >  While I believe Obama thought he could usher in a more just and robust > America, he wasn't able to and is now another pawn taking directions from the > big Democratic party doners.  > However, he faced unbelievable odds...Bush and the Republicans left this > country in tatters after inheriting the strongest federal balance sheet in > postwar history.  I have no understanding of how anyone could trust that > agenda, which is why, when I look at the alternative to Obama, I get even > more worried.  > All politicians give us BS in their speeches - I can't tolerate listening to > any of them on either side.  I think we need to get a message to the > Democratic Party and our individual reps...they are just as bad right now in > using sensationalism and self-righteousness to drum up money as the other > side...two sides of the same coin.  It's a completely flawed system. Maybe > there is value in a 4th party, I don't know. > Until we, the people, address corporate america and demand that they work for > us and not the other way around, we are screwed.  How do we do this?  I'd > like to hear some ideas. I think in our society, just about the only way to change people's minds and/or to mobilize them to make demands of corporate America is through a movie, or several, that get the information out in a simple, vivid, unambiguous form. Most people don't want to think too much or deeply about anything complicated. So the movies would need to be compelling, clear, somewhat simple, and appeal to a variety of issues that affect us. People would have to get that without change, they are hurt financially, and that with change, they will benefit financially. Along with the movie some simple, inexpensive ways to put pressure on corporations has to be available. But I hold little hope that anything would work. If climate change and health insurance are examples of our behavior on issues, despite how important they are, then everyone will just follow along in their same thought patterns. What I see is that the only reason most people are interested in driving a smaller, gas efficient car now is because the cost of gas bothers them. And most don't want national health insurance because, God forbid, they might end up paying a few pennies for some disabled or unemployed person's health care, too. We here in the US don't do much to help the group - our individualism is entrenched strongly. > Of course, Obama may be deciding that his life is more importantremember > what happens to those who are too outspoken and gain too much influence. >  While I have no proof of course.I always think about JFK, Bobby > Kennedy, and MLK.  > > --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Tom Pall wrote: > > From: Tom Pall > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] #f@ckyouwashington > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 4:36 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:40 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > We don't need a 3rd party.  We need to primary Obama with a Democrat who > > will stand up and say Obama doesn't represent the party of FDR, he > > represents the blood suckers on Wall Street. Bernie Sanders agrees we > > should primary Obama hoping it would push Obama further to the left. It's > > not going to happen. Obama has a lock on plenty of money for a campaign > > that would (if 2008 is any lesson) trash the reputation of the challenger, > > have the DNC cheat for him and play the race card for good measure. Obama > > is on the right, has always been on the right and will stay on the right > > regardless of a primary. > > > > > > The debt ceiling debate is just kabuki to make the rubes believe that the > > only choice, Flimflam Man has to save the county from defaulting on its > > debt is sacrifice Social Security and Medicare when in truth that is > > exactly what Obama was hired to do. > > > > > > If Obama were a Democrat, he would have stopped all the Republican crazy > > talk about the debt ceiling by simply saying he would invoke the 14th > > Amendment. Bill Clinton said he would invoke the constitutional option to > > raise the debt ceiling "without hesitation, and force the courts to stop > > me" in order to prevent a default. Now, there's a president with some balls. > > > > > > http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/19/bill-clinton-says-he-would-use-the-14th-amendment/ > > > > > > For the past few weeks, Obama has shown no interest in involving Democrats > > in "negotiating" with Boehner, Cantor or McConnell because he couldn't have > > gotten away with unilaterally offering up programs to help the poor and > > women. Obama has continually lied about the strength and solvency of the > > social safety net an
[FairfieldLife] Re: Video of my old band, âªGoodhillâ¬â - YouTube
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of Denise Evans > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:59 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Video of my old band, âªGoodhillâ - YouTube > > > > > > > This looks like the 60's. Is the the 70's? > > > > It was 1970. > > > > Definitely before band names took on names like "Twisted pinkie". Which one > are you? > > > > The drummer. Was this Connecticut? Do you know what song you were playing? You all look so very young, and we thought we new so much in those days! > > > --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Rick Archer wrote: > > > From: Rick Archer > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Video of my old band, âªGoodhillâ - YouTube > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 10:36 AM > > > > No audio: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyWsofD6Ics > > > > _ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3793 - Release Date: 07/28/11 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau wrote: > > Thank you, w. The best time to have written it would have been in the late > seventies or early eighties. It's so long, now, much of it is lost. But I > hear you and one never knows. > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:05 PM, wayback71 wrote: > > Mark, if you reconsider and decide to write that book (maybe a few of you > > should get together, brainstorm your memories and get the thing written) > > that would be of interest to many of of us. - I think it would sell and not > > just to TM'ers. If you don't do the book, I for one would be delighted to > > read more of these memories and stories. You have a wonderfully thoughtful > > way of writing about them, including the ambiguity. > > > > If you care to answer any or all - > > > > Were you there when the spaceship supposedly landed in Mallorca and MMY was > > driven to the beach and got on for a while? If so, what hapened? I was on > > TCC there then (Fall 1971 and early winter of 1972 til the move to Fiuggi) > > but not up that late at night. > > > No, I heard about that but was, like you, a TTC participant then. Is there > anyone one else here who was in the Karina? If so, I have a question I'd > love to ask you. > > You say you saw angels, devas. Did you ever see anything on a subtle level > > that indicated that MMY was not on his best behavior or had an entirely > > human side as well? (ie did his energy change or darken) > > > Absolutely. And not only on the subtle. I've already answered this > obliquely regarding his sexual frustration, but it also occurred with his sex > and other things. He definitely waxed and waned. There were times, one the > most shocking of all, when I was really shaken by how he looked--shrunken, > wasted, dark and with basically no energy. He had a large darker splotch on > his cheek that he always covered with makeup and had even neglected to do > that. But he always recovered very quickly. > > How did Maharishi chose you as skin boy? > > > Oh, this... After the 108 group was formed, M decided to have the skin boys > be 108s. As I said, Anthony Jobbe was skin boy before me and M really liked > him but he was left behind in America when we left to start using Seelisberg > because he was misrepresenting himself regarding his financial situation. > John Mortenson, me and M flew to Switzerland. John had priority over me > because I had taken a few months to teach TM, because I felt I wanted that > experience, after the 108 course at Lake Tahoe. It's also possible John did > some of that while I was teaching TM. But when I reconnected with M, Anthony > was doing it by himself. So he started carrying the skin. But after a very > short time, maybe a week or two, Maharishi said, "You be on the buzzer," to > me. The buzzer went from his bedroom to the room nearby where the skin boy > slept. So I replied, "But, M, if I am to do that I have to sleep in the room > John is in." "Yes," he said, "sleep in that room." So I had to go and tell > John, John checked back with M to make sure and left for Hawaii the next day. > So I started knowing absolutely nothing. The first morning on the job, M > buzzed me and said "I need a dhoti." I had not even gone through his things > and, in my flustered haste, brought a sheet to his room, put it down for him > and left. Two minutes later, he buzzed and said, "No, I need a DHOTI." This > time I was more careful and brought him what he wanted. > > Was there any talk among the inner circle staff about doubts and concerns > > (especially when people got burned out and decided to leave), suspicions > > about meetings with Judith? Or were you all so heavily drugged by the bliss? > > > No, but it wasn't because we were heavily drugged by bliss. In my case, it > was because it was an internal process that I kept to myself. And no one > ever approached me to talk about it. > > What was the single most powerful experience you had in your time around > > MMY? > > > I really can't give you one. There were two categories, when I was rounding > my brains out, all kinds of things happened. And when M cranked out the > darshan to his most extraordinary levels. > > Were you around to see the introduction of the siddhis? If so, how did that > > come about from your perspective? > > > No, I came back from trying to do stuff at the UN to participate in the > second six month course. > > Do you still do TM? > > > No. I sit and be with whatever arises. Usually, after a while, it all > subsides and I am in some form of samadhi. Usually, the time being with > what's arising exceeds the time in samadhi. > > Was it worth it, the growth and bliss versus the lengthy process of > > disillusionment of your dreams? > > > Absolutely. I wouldn't have missed it for the world, unless, of course, I > could have been with Guru Dev or a "truer" master. > Thank you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau wrote: > > And this, too, M was always intensely vehement about maintaining the purity > of the teaching. I can have compassion for the remaining TBs in their > attempts to be vigilant about that. Me,too. Bevan and John did not invent the dome badge rules or the whole set of TMO rules. The rajas and higher ups are simply following Maharishi's very clear and long standing policies. I am sure that they believe that adjusting these rules would be the beginning of a slippery slide into all sorts of impurity of the teaching challenges. They are devotees doing their very best to honor their Master. These are MMY"s wishes and rules, and things will not change as long as this generation of devotees - who actually spent time with MMY - are in charge. It is possible that if MMY were alive now, he would loosen things up, but no one in charge now will make that decision in Maharishi's place. It is the way it is and will stay the same and Bevan and John can not be blamed for this. Maharishi did this. > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Buck wrote: > > > Mark, given these modern times and communications you would think so. In > > the marketplace people are way more studied and way more exposed to gurus > > and spirituality than probably ever before. However, on the ground in TM > > here in FF you need a valid badge. Effectively participation is with a > > one-guru badge in application. The TM-TB's left inside in control of > > participation are more strictly 'one-guru' devotees. Disciples. They put > > that standard over on everyone else, even on those who may just be > > practitioners and not devotees. > > > > Here in Fairfield last week for Guru Purnima you had to have a 'valid' dome > > badge (be an eligible TM-siddhi practitioner) to go to the TM-movement's > > guru celebration. In effect that left thousands of old-time badge-less > > meditators out to themselves. The FF TM-no-badge-nik meditators. Inside > > there are only a few hundreds active left here with badges yet close to > > three thousand adults here who previously had come here to Iowa as > > TM-meditators. There essentially is a fealty test going on by the > > conservative elements in the middle putting up the threshold of a > > TM-Siddhis 'dome badge' to old meditators coming in to even celebrate > > Maharishi as a guru. It's a very calculated policy on the part of a TM > > taliban-like doctrine-bound element inside. > > > > You would think Guru Purnima could be a time to be forthcoming, hospitable. > > A time to gather. As I survey around on the street, there is still in the > > old meditating community a residual or latent hope that things could work > > out for TM here but practically folks express only dim hope given the > > general lack of social skills within TM in reality. > > > > Jai Guru Dev, > > -Buck in FF > > an old Iowa meditator > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau wrote: > > > > > > You're welcome, Richard. I'm glad. > > > Well, he definitely was my master from '71 till the late '70s or early > > > '80s, but, after that, no. > > > If we take the reality, I don't feel he would qualify as a true master. > > > If we can hold some idealized version of him, I suppose we could keep him > > > as a master. > > > I think Guru Dev would much more readily qualify as true master. > > > But perhaps it is time for us to move beyond masters. That was a viable > > > way to grow spiritually in the past, but, perhaps, not so much now. > > > I think our times call more for us to find our own way, or to find > > > teachers who will accept us without demanding that they be masters, > > > teachers who serve us well from where we currently are, but who > > > acknowledge their own imperfections and that not all they teach will > > > perfectly serve everyone. > > > Hope this helps, > > > m > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:45 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > Thanks so much for all your recent posts. They have really been a > > > > wonderful read and very insightful. > > > > > > > > Since you had the opportunity to experience Maharishi in a way that > > > > most of us never did, I am wondering how you feel about Maharishi being > > > > a "master", and if you feel or felt that he was or is your personal > > > > master? Its an area that I have gone back and forth on many times > > > > throughout my life and still hold some confusion about. > > > > There is no question that TM has worked for me and that being around > > > > him was very powerful, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is in the > > > > league of a true master, particularly with all of the things that just > > > > don't make sense about him. > > > > > > > > Your insight would be most helpful 5'm sure if you don't mind. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau wrote: > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Forget 2012...the end of the world is 18,411 years away
Follett is not a good writer, but he does tell a good story and I liked the history involved. Shardlake is on my list for this Fall. I added him when you posted your suggestions a few months ago. I just read At Home by Bill Bryson and really enjoyed all the historical info, now reading People of the Book by Geraldine Brooks (again not literature, but the history is good - about saving and restoring an old haggadah). Cleopatra by Stacey Shiff is next, then Shardlake. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > So says a scholarly article at the following link, which > > > describes a newly-restored stone tapestry in Westminster > > > Cathedral, which some believe reveals the date of Doomsday. > > > http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/5731/weaving_the_worlds_end.html > > > > > > Fascinating article, really. > > > > > It is. Ken Follett (Pillars of the Earth) could do a whole > > book about this this beautiful stone work. > > Oh, please, no. I just finished Pillars, and I kept > wishing C.J. Sansom, author of the Matthew Shardlake > novels I posted about here awhile back, could have > written it. What a contrast! Such great material, and > such a pedestrian treatment by Follett. Maybe if I > hadn't read the Sansom novels first, I wouldn't have > been so disappointed. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Forget 2012...the end of the world is 18,411 years away
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > So says a scholarly article at the following link, which > describes a newly-restored stone tapestry in Westminster > Cathedral, which some believe reveals the date of Doomsday. > > http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/5731/weaving_the_worlds_end.html > > Fascinating article, really. > It is. Ken Follett (Pillars of the Earth) could do a whole book about this this beautiful stone work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good by Amy, you will be missed
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 07/23/2011 12:19 PM, wayback71 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > >> On 07/23/2011 11:23 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > >>> We really have to get this drug-synapse connection handled. I am sick of > >>> losing people to this shit. > >>> > >>> At her best: > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVBoXtxD0Rs&playnext=1&list=PL2D4F755C610950CA > >> Legalize all recreational drugs. Use taxes from it to help educate > >> people from grade school on up as to how these work and why people take > >> them. > > Bhairi - I work in a school. Kids at all grade levels have been educated > > for many many years now, ad nauseum, about drug use, alcohol, smoking, > > what it all does to the brain and body and not to start. Things is, some > > kids just do it all anyway and need some way to alleviate their > > anxiety/stress/whatever. Maybe it would help a bit if some rock stars come > > out and do some ads suggesting never starting. And also promote starting > > to meditate, do yoga etc, as you suggest below. But lack of knowledge is > > not the problem any more. > > I also meant to mention "peer pressure." Some people can get into drugs > and take or leave them. I'm sure you've know people like that. And > others develop a dependency on drugs. Many people feel a need to keep > up with their peers. They need to know that they shouldn't and it's > even a bad idea. The music scene is horrible to deal with unless you > are real individual and stand up to the peer pressure that goes on there. > > People need to also understand themselves. Believe it or not I've seen > codependency markers in horoscopes. But we can't expect a dumbass > society to ever look at real horoscopes as a tool. Years ago I spoke with someone who looked at the horoscopes of several psychiatric patients in a particular psychiatrist's office (prior patient permission given, but astrologer had no info on the patients other than birthdate and time) and was able to tell the dr just what was going on with the patients in terms of reason for the problem and diagnosis. He did this while in a graduate program at Harvard in the 70's. Never published, just an experiment. He says the psychiatrist was amazed at the accuracy and some of the insights. Astrology will never be taken seriously until some really good research is done and redone to prove, or disprove, its accuracy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
Mark, if you reconsider and decide to write that book (maybe a few of you should get together, brainstorm your memories and get the thing written) that would be of interest to many of of us. - I think it would sell and not just to TM'ers. If you don't do the book, I for one would be delighted to read more of these memories and stories. You have a wonderfully thoughtful way of writing about them, including the ambiguity. If you care to answer any or all - Were you there when the spaceship supposedly landed in Mallorca and MMY was driven to the beach and got on for a while? If so, what hapened? I was on TCC there then (Fall 1971 and early winter of 1972 til the move to Fiuggi) but not up that late at night. You say you saw angels, devas. Did you ever see anything on a subtle level that indicated that MMY was not on his best behavior or had an entirely human side as well? (ie did his energy change or darken) How did Maharishi chose you as skin boy? Was there any talk among the inner circle staff about doubts and concerns (especially when people got burned out and decided to leave), suspicions about meetings with Judith? Or were you all so heavily drugged by the bliss? What was the single most powerful experience you had in your time around MMY? Were you around to see the introduction of the siddhis? If so, how did that come about from your perspective? Do you still do TM? Was it worth it, the growth and bliss versus the lengthy process of disillusionment of your dreams? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > Thanks for this Mark. Awesome post. > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Mark Landau > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:22 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals > > > > > > Wow, are we one dimensional? I believe it's the sign of a developed being > that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes. Not only can I have it > both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it all ways > that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to truth and > reality. That's a lot of ways. I also believe that, ultimately, we must go > beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including the polarity of good and > bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we rush out to do all the "bad" > things we possibly can ASAP). > > > > The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, who I > find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, prurient > ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about that, too) and > the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform the world for the > better. Why else would I work seven days a week for the movement for nearly > five years and pay significantly to do so? Are we not all some blend of the > three gunas? Aren't there glorious and dark things about all of us? > > > > M was no different. One of the most glorious things about him was his > energy. I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven months > I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him. I went > through withdrawal for two years when I lost it. > > > > That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival > footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying something > like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got addicted to > it." Is that so very negative? > > > > In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he could > get into you and help you sleep? He could also get into you and completely > pulverize you." Is that both "negative" and "positive"? Of course, > one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would be the > greatest blessing. It could only be all positive. But what if he did it > because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated? Yes, IME, he > definitely got sexually frustrated. In my total reworking of his own words, > the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about who lived > beyond the libido was Sukadeva. > > > > I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox together. > How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time? Well, that's just how > it was. He was wonderful and awful at the same time." David filmed me for > over two hours and he used the several minutes that suited his purpose in > segueing from the more positive part of the film to the more negative. > > > > So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience, they > still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have been > entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to be > revered. I have kept them very well protected and have handled them very > little over the decades." and > > > > M abused women, devastated
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good by Amy, you will be missed
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 07/23/2011 11:23 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > We really have to get this drug-synapse connection handled. I am sick of > > losing people to this shit. > > > > At her best: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVBoXtxD0Rs&playnext=1&list=PL2D4F755C610950CA > > Legalize all recreational drugs. Use taxes from it to help educate > people from grade school on up as to how these work and why people take > them. Bhairi - I work in a school. Kids at all grade levels have been educated for many many years now, ad nauseum, about drug use, alcohol, smoking, what it all does to the brain and body and not to start. Things is, some kids just do it all anyway and need some way to alleviate their anxiety/stress/whatever. Maybe it would help a bit if some rock stars come out and do some ads suggesting never starting. And also promote starting to meditate, do yoga etc, as you suggest below. But lack of knowledge is not the problem any more. Musicians often get into downers because they were high strung to > begin with and therefore very bright to understand the art and sciences > of music and master them. But they were often too high strung to pull > off good performances. They turn to drugs. I was also high strung and > meditation solved the problem. I had high strung music students. They > would come in an play for me and blow the piece but I could tell they > had practiced and mentally understood the point of the lesson. But I > couldn't exactly suggest they do meditation. > > I did have a band teacher when I was in the 5th grade who had the whole > band do a visualization technique where we closed our eyes and imagined > a handkerchief slowly falling to the ground. Mind you this was the 1950s! > > The "war on drugs" is just a political thing. It is really just a "war > on the underclass" to keep the "great unwashed" in their "proper > place." In the US drug laws are very unpopular but they sure roll out > the propaganda when we try to legalize drugs just as they did here in > California last year with the pot legalization proposition. The only > thing we could figure out was the that vote got rigged or the dopers > were too stoned to remember to vote. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and The Last Mountain)
Excellent find, Xeno. What a pleasure to read all the relevant info in one coherent, unbiased presentation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > The following analysis is for those who are interested in the current > financial situation of the United States government. [from factcheck.org] > > *Does Washington have a spending problem or an income problem? We offer some > key facts.* > > http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/ > > This site offers interesting information on politicians and political > organisations (both parties) that twist facts to suit their message. This > current page discusses where the government's income comes from, and where it > goes within some historical perspective. They also provide the references for > their sources of information. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau wrote: > > > > Wow, are we one dimensional? I believe it's the sign of a developed being > > that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes. Not only can I have it > > both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it all ways > > that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to truth and > > reality. That's a lot of ways. I also believe that, ultimately, we must > > go beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including the polarity of good > > and bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we rush out to do all the > > "bad" things we possibly can ASAP). > > > > The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, who > > I find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, > > prurient ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about > > that, too) and the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform > > the world for the better. Why else would I work seven days a week for the > > movement for nearly five years and pay significantly to do so? Are we not > > all some blend of the three gunas? Aren't there glorious and dark things > > about all of us? > > > > M was no different. One of the most glorious things about him was his > > energy. I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven months > > I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him. I went > > through withdrawal for two years when I lost it. > > > > That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival > > footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying > > something like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got > > addicted to it." Is that so very negative? > > > > In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he could > > get into you and help you sleep? He could also get into you and completely > > pulverize you." Is that both "negative" and "positive"? Of course, > > one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would be the > > greatest blessing. It could only be all positive. But what if he did it > > because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated? Yes, IME, he > > definitely got sexually frustrated. In my total reworking of his own > > words, the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about who > > lived beyond the libido was Sukadeva. > > > > I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox together. > > How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time? Well, that's just > > how it was. He was wonderful and awful at the same time." David filmed me > > for over two hours and he used the several minutes that suited his purpose > > in segueing from the more positive part of the film to the more negative. > > > > So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience, they > > still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have been > > entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to be > > revered. I have kept them very well protected and have handled them very > > little over the decades." and > > > > M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more concerned > > with money than with treating people decently. > > > > They're all simply true. And so were all the other totally glorious > > aspects of that intense, complex man. > > > > Was anyone else in the movie theater that night in Fiuggi, or wherever it > > was, when M's darshan got so strong that it made all the little, hanging > > crystals dance extravagantly and tinkle together as if there were a small > > tornado blowing through the hall? And probably only I saw this, but when M > > first got to Murren, the three mountain devas came to greet him. IME, > > which of course many of you would completely howl at, they had been waiting > > for someone for centuries and thought, because of his light, that it might > > be M. M went completely silent and looked up at them for several moments > > while they communed. He wasn't who they were waiting for, they left and > > the lecture went on. And you should have seen the angel stations that > > congregated in the intersections of the pathways between the puja tables in > > the halls where M made teachers. That's why he didn't like people walking > > around then. I had to bust right through one of them to get to him to tell > > him something urgent while he was giving out the mantras. The five or six > > angels in that one station took off in all directions like they had been > > stung. (There, three little stories...) I was made an initiator in Fiuggi in May of 1972. The energy in the puja table area in front of MMY was absolutely incredible, astounding, golden, powerful. I was nervous as I began the puja, but soon got
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau wrote: > > For those who never saw them in person, they're in all the old photos. And > there are many who were in the movement, including Rick, who knew/know me. I > could never fabricate such a thing. They're authentic and have been in my > possession for these 38 or so years, though I suppose there will always be > those who will disbelieve. Who could authenticate them, and how? Perhaps > one of the others who were in the room one of those two nights would come > forward, though that would be amazing to me. I certainly don't remember who > was there. Of course I have pictures of me carrying the skin, but that > doesn't authenticate them, either. Those who know will know, those who > don't, won't. > > On Jul 18, 2011, at 6:59 PM, wgm4u wrote: > > > How do you intend to authenticate them, your word? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau wrote: > > > > > > Maharishi's Sandals > > > When I was skin boy in the early seventies, a pair of Maharishi's sandals > > > came from him to me. They were his exclusive pair for many years. > > > > > > They broke one evening in the wet grass of the Love Foundation, Mike > > > Love's place in Santa Barbara. MIU, now MUM, was in Santa Barbara then > > > and Maharishi was staying there. Anthony Jobbe, the skin boy at the time, > > > found a rock and hammered the nails of the strap back in. Maharishi then > > > wore them to Seelisburg the first time we visited. When we left for > > > Switzerland, Anthony stayed behind, and I soon became skin boy. > > > > > > In Maharishi's small meeting room, attached to his bedroom, he stepped on > > > blank sheets of paper and had me draw the outlines of his feet. I then > > > cut them out and sent them to his preferred sandal maker in India. > > > > > > In due course, his new sandals arrived. In that same meeting room, > > > Maharishi put them on and asked if they looked too big. The few of us > > > there said, "No." When he left the room to go to bed, he left his old > > > sandals where they stood. That night, I did, as well. When I went in the > > > next morning, they were still standing in the middle of the room. I > > > realized that he either didn't care what happened to them or was > > > purposefully leaving them for me. Needless to say, I didn't throw them > > > away. > > > > > > In my experience, they still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms > > > and molecules have been entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they > > > would be holy objects to be revered. I have kept them very well protected > > > and have handled them very little over the decades. > > > > > > At sixty-five, I have very little savings and have lost my job. I was > > > planning to work into my seventies. My predicament forces me to attempt > > > to sell them. I am hoping that the person they are meant to go to will > > > have the wherewithal and will to honor their value. As 108 for over four > > > years, I spent around $100K working for the movement pretty much seven > > > days a week (when not rounding). As 108s, we weren't paid, paid $1000 a > > > month "so as not to be a financial drain on the movement," and paid all > > > our own travel (and sometimes other) expenses. Small amounts will not be > > > considered. > > > > > > Another possibility is donating to me so I can donate them to the > > > movement. > > > > > > Please forward or copy and email to anyone you know who may be able and > > > interested. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Mark Landau, m...@sky5.com > > > Nice to hear this story, Mark. I hope you can find a buyer - I would think that within the TMO there are several people with the means to pay a decent price for such precious objects.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Homes for sale
So, are they downsizing or do they have early notification that things are going to shut down in the TMO presence in Fairfield? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Jul 18, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Bill Coop wrote: > > > Two TMO stalwarts have their MSV homes on the market. > > > > Maharishi Vedic City Mayor Bob Wynne > > http://fairfieldmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Iast&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N503278945,-N173093,-N,-A,-N0 > > "Elegance and grandeur grace the halls of this 5-bedroom, 4.5 bath, 4341 > > sq. ft. stately mansion... MSV design by Dr. Eike Hartmann." > > They're asking $720,000, taxes are $7956.00, > and they will accept cash (which is big of them). > It's a steal. > > > > MUM professor Robert Schneider > > http://fairfieldmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Iast&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N503278945,-N166026,-N,-A,-N0 > > "The Bow of Rama graces the front door of this 4 bedroom, 2 bath, one-story > > Maharishi Sthapatya Veda(SM) design masterpiece ... A royal and sublime > > environment is generated in this house designed by Sturla Sighvatsson, a > > master architect." > > For this one, they're asking $385,000, taxes are $5224.00, > and they'll *only* accept cash. Anybody got a spare $385,000 > laying around? > > Take a look at the pictures~~these have got to be two of the > ugliest houses in creation. What were the owners thinking~~ > what were the architects thinking? It's a new style: Neo-Nazi > Lite. > > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bill Maher, accused of sexism, rips Palin, Bachman, and Jesus
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > And well. A great rant. I particularly liked, "If you > > want to know where most of this nation's sexism is > > coming from, you don't have to look any further than > > the one person who makes the cover of Newsweek more > > often than Sarah Palin -- Jesus." > > Clever rant - reminds me I need to watch him more often. He nails ideas so beautifully. With this piece he is off a bit in terms of accuracy. My understanding is that Jesus was rather profeminist and treated women better than was the custom in those days. His New Testament teachings were more about love and kindness to all. It is the Old Testament (God) that has all the commandments and many rules as per orthodox Judaism, not Jesus. > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/17/bill-maher-michele-bachmann-sarah-palin_n_900994.html > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life as TV series
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > I'm a fan of television. I think some of the best > work in the motion picture arts is being done on > TV. The genre of a TV series or mini-series, in > the wrong hands, can turn high art into low schlock, > as lamentably happened with the American remake of > "Life On Mars." Or, in the right hands, a TV series > or mini-series can become the counterpart of a great > novel. > > I've watched or rewatched a few TV series lately, > from start to finish, in a kind of exercise in trying > (a la "Manhunter") to recapture the mindset of good > storytelling. So I've been thinking about what makes > a good story into a great story. One of the things > I've come up with is character arc. Do the characters > stay pretty much the same through an entire 6-to-12 > episode mini-series (or season of an ongoing series), > or do they keep changing on you? I've found that I > prefer stories filled with characters who change on me > a lot, who have long and complicated character arcs. > > For example, two performances in the last couple of > years strike me as standouts in terms of character arc. > The first was in, of all things, "Spartacus: Blood and > Sand." Early on we are introduced to -- and by "intro- > duced to" I mean we get to see literally everything > there is to see about her, nude -- to a character > named Ilithyia. She is played by an Australian actress, > Viva Bianca. When we first meet her, she seems a bit > of a beautiful but shallow dingbat. But over the course > of 12 episodes she turns into one of the most evil > villains I've ever seen onscreen. Ilithyia is right up > there with Hannibal Lechter. She did things in this > series that completely surprised me and made me think, > "Whoa! Reassessment time. This woman is not who I > thought she was." I love that. > > Another actress who got to play a character with > *tremendous* arc just got ignored in the Emmy nominations, > which I think is a cryin' shame. Emilia Clarke gave a > knockout performance as Daenerys Targaryen in "Game Of > Thrones." Again, we are introduced to her naked, leading > us as viewers to think we've seen all of her. When we > first see her, she's a beautiful but naive virgin, and > a bit of a spoiled princess. Technically she's not a > princess; she's the rightful queen of the whole land. But > she's still 15 or so and unformed. To watch the change > in her as she is married off to a barbarian warrior lord, > becomes the queen of his tribe, and gives birth not only > to his son but a few more magical creatures as well is > jaw-dropping. It's almost the definition of "high > character arc." Agreed - she has done a fine job and the script has her growing in each episode. Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister is absolutely superb, with layers of his character being revealed as time passes. > > So this got me thinkin' about the arc of some of the > characters on the TV series of Fairfield Life. Do we have > a high arc, or a low arc? Do people tend to change over > the years, or stay the same? And IF they change, do other > people let them, or is there a concerted attempt to draw > them back "into character" and replay the same scenes > they played years ago, in exactly the same way? No > answers here, only questions. Now to the fun part: > > What if Fairfield Life WAS a TV series? Would it be on > during prime time, or as a daytime soap? Would it be on > FOX or AMC or HBO or the Oprah Channel? How would TV > Guide classify it -- would it be considered more like > "John From Cinncinnati" or more like "Jersey Shore?" > Which actor or actress would you want to play you in > the series? Has the series jumped the shark, or is it > just getting into its classic "Lucy" episodes period? > > This post, based on my watching of the series so far, has > the potential to turn either into a fun thread or a > contentious one. Or a mix of both. I'm curious to see > what'll happen. > > I'm gonna go for the fun part. I'm thinkin' that I'd like > to see my character played by Kevin Spacey, doing a kind > of combination of Verbal Kint and Lester Burnham. Either > that or Robin Williams. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: FW: Stocks - Short & Sweet
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 07/08/2011 05:37 AM, WLeed3@... wrote: > > > > Stocks - Short& Sweet > > > > I called my stockbroker and asked him what I should be buying. > > > > > > He said, "If the current administration is in office much longer, canned > > goods and ammunition are your best bet!" > > And if the Republicans take over again, a condo in Belize. > Actually, if the Repubs do get in, we need to have a discussion here on FFL about the possible places to head to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Help a Saint -Lose Your BadgeNO SIGN EVER inDOMES
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002" > wrote: > > > > But Curtis, > > > > What you are saying is that Rick reported gossip years ago, which later > > appeared in a book by the gossiper. That´s not fire, only Smoke. Dan, Judithe is not the only woman to make these claims. Several other women have as well. Read the book and then let us know what you think. > > So you are not a fan of first person histories are you? Then how do you > learn about the past if you dismiss first person accounts as gossip? > > Of course if you read the book and found some specific places where you > question her credibility I would enjoy hearing them. I am assuming that you > wouldn't be shallow enough to make this judgement about her book without > having read it. You know kind of prejudging it based on gossip you heard > about what was in the book. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm with Sal on this one Dan. This request is not reasonable. > > > > > > And as far as Rick not coming through with facts, he backed Judith's > > > account for years, was way ahead of the curve, and then the book came > > > out. So I think we can drop the tired "innuendo" routine now. > > > > > > What Rick is "prone" to is having an open mind. He has created a place > > > where atheist's can interact with the formerly enlightened as well as the > > > currently "whatever". Not too shabby IMO. > > > > > > Although we have come down in different places concerning spirituality, I > > > have respect for the integrity of the process that lead him to his own > > > different conclusions. > > > > > > And if he smells smoke, I'm betting on fire soon to come. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:19 PM, danfriedman2002 wrote: > > > > > > > > > Your request for a picture of a sign is a good one. But then we'd be > > > > > dealing with facts. Rick's prone to innuendo, not facts. > > > > > > > > Um, Dan...Rick hasn't been in the Doom in years. > > > > And, like most other people without badges, > > > > has no way of getting in. And do you really > > > > think with all the paranoia in the TMO they'd > > > > let someone take pictures? You ask for > > > > evidence that I'm pretty sure you know nobody > > > > can supply. Therefore, for you the situation > > > > doesn't exist. If that works for you, great. > > > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > All our experience is subjective, even that of the outside > > objective world about which we construe facts. > > What appear to us to be "facts." > > > I know of no law that says we have to either keep the > > experiences we have private or blab them to the public. > > It happens one way or the other. If some did not blab > > out their experience, we would not have people teaching > > or attempting to teach about enlightenment, we would not > > have skyscrapers, medicine, trains, or Barry's favorite > > beer. > > Of the achievements listed, I must admit to thinking > that the monks who brewed my favorite beer may be > the most praiseworthy in transforming their inner > subjective experience into objective reality. :-) > > > Some have blabbed and made something of the outer world, > > some have blabbed and have not. Some have blabbed and made > > a ruin of the world about them. And some don't say what > > is going on with them. Most on this forum say at least > > something about what is going on with them. This seems > > to be a factor in why people continue to post on this > > platform. > > > > A selfish act seems to imply will. > > The decision to consider the one-pointed pursuit of > enlightenment the highest goal in life seems to imply will. > > > If you do not believe in free will, and were that belief > > true, then the idea of a self that can be selfish has no > > sense. And if one did have will, but chose not to exercise > > it, having a subjective experience one did not will to > > describe to the outer world, or to do so, would still not > > be a selfish act. > > Exactly. In a universe devoid of free will, the selfish get > off Scot-free for being selfish. That's why I think some > of them selfishly choose not to believe in free will. :-) > > > Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems > > to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before. > > He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and > > his flip flops are an expression of that choice. > > If they're not, then whoever or whatever the non- > freewillers think is running things is not really as > consistent as they think he/she/it is. Try to imagine > the consternation of those who don't much like the > things I write but philosophically believe that God > is really writing it all. They must think that God is > a real dick to keep putting these words in my mouth. :-) Whoa, just a point to clarify here, since you and I have been down this road before. Just because I suspect that there might not be the free will it feels as if we have, does not mean I think God is conducting the symphony. I think it more likely that our responses that feel so considered and "free willish" are mostly automatic reactions to stimuli (all based on our brain structure, neurotransmittors, and prior experiences), and by the time our awareness picks up on the response, we have missed the millions of tiny automatic responses and and so assume our own free will - we - made the decision. God does not have to enter this equation, and I doubt that most "no free willers" here on FFL think that God is doing it all for us.. Given your posts, which I enjoy even when I disagree and about which I think Xeno got it just perfectly right, this might mean you have a brain that enjoys trying on a variety of outlooks, enjoys humor and variety, gets a kick out of provoking sometimes, is creative, writes well. But, since it sure feels like you are doing it, take credit for it for as long as you can:-) > > > I do not always agree with what he says, but I have no > > evidence he even agrees with what he says. > > Well said. That's it exactly. > > > He just says it, and in his writing characterises the > > ideas a certain way, with a certain slant, like the way > > a journalist writes. It is that characterisation that > > get people riled up here. It is a deliberate and effective > > technique. > > Bingo. > > > If I do not agree with him, that does not mean what I > > think is true either. > > Bingo again. In a universe without free will, some can > claim that overreacting to the things I write is not their > doing. They are prisoners to their karma or to the laws > of nature or to the will of God in this regard, and have > no choice *but* to overreact. Those on the forum who > have free will are able to read my stuff, take it or leave it, > and move on without overreacting. They are free to read > the things I write without acting out the following famous > scenario. I think that ability alone is grounds for believing > in free will. :-) > > [0] >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brain, Spirituality, Science, Metaphysics, Enlightenment, Aquinas, MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > Wayback71: > >>Response:Yes, one of these paradigms does seem to win out - and I > continue to hope that one paradigm does not have to preclude the other. > Our generation is the first to have had these very real metaphysical > experiences and then years later found that science is able to point to > the brain and say "this caused that seemingly metaphysical experience." > Frankly, it is hard to take, even if totally fascinating. > > Judy (authfriend): > >Let's not forget that for all science has discovered about the brain, > it hasn't yet begun to solve the "hard problem" of the nature of > consciousness itself. There are lots of theories but no consensus, not > even on a definition of consciousness. As long as that most fundamental > of all issues remains a mystery, I don't think science is in a position > to claim to have trumped metaphysics. > Xeno:The hard problem, is a kind of odd problem. I suspect it is because of > the way we define the situation that the problem exists. The hard > problem: a) how does a physical system interact with a non-physical > system, because these two aspects are like oil and water. How can any > theory bridge the gap between something that has definite properties, > and one that has no properties whatsoever. How can I prove to you that > my invisible, fire-breathing (but heatless) metaphysical teddy bear > exists, having no physical properties at all? Then there are these two > sub questions b) does consciousness cause the brain, or c) does the > brain cause consciousness. I am stuck on asking myself b and c. snip > With spirit and material, or consciousness and brain, we observe they > always go together, but maybe there is no causality at all, just in the > same way a coin has heads and tails, a front and back side, but no one > would say the front side of a coin causes the back side of the coin or > vice versa -- they always come together, they are inseparable, they have > a specific relationship to one another, but they do not create one > another or cause one another. Thus if you have a brain, and the neurons > etc., are all working in a specified way, you have consciousness. The > consciousness does not come from somewhere or go somewhere, it is a > property of the relationship when matter is in a certain configuration. > Consciousness and matter are not mutually exclusive in the same way > matter and gravitation are not mutually exclusive. They are two faces of > the same coin. Yes, but if consciousness does not cause the brain, then when the brain dies, so does consciousness. That is not what most spiritual people want to think. > snip large snip about philosophy > > snip >The purpose of the metaphysical aspect > of the system is to fool you into culturing the physical world in such a > way to set up the proper correlations by giving you a desire that > outweighs doing something else, by giving a system of belief that makes > this quest important. This belief system is supposed to be temporary and > serves to motivate you to get from point A to point B, or state of > experience from state A to state B and so on. However only if the > journey is successful, or largely successful will the metaphysical > component of the journey be undone and seen for the nonsense it is. The > only way to tell experientially if this has happened is if an experience > occurs that results in seeing the path one has traveled never really was > there. If the experience is clear enough, the desire of seeking goes > away. Something new happens: you have to learn how to live your life in > this world that no longer is constrained by the ideas that you > previously thought were real, or true. There are no new ideas about what > is real. You do not replace what goes away when this experience occurs > with another set of ideas and goals. You are basically a blank slate, > you are free, but the world goes on. You have to live it, you have no > choice, but that no-choice is the freedom. Now you know, but cannot > really explain it. I like this blank slate, no-choice knwo but not explain description. This is a very interesting the idea that the purpose of these systems of belief and meditation is only to motivate you to get from your ordinary state of awareness to enlightenment, from A to B. MMY said that, too, that the path was only the path and was meaningless once the goal was reached. And some of us buy in to that getting to B, we want what we are told enlightenment will bring. But with the science out there these days and into the future, I am betting that enlightenment will be measurable and then people will have the option to decide if
[FairfieldLife] Re: The IMF: What would Americans do?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 06/30/2011 01:54 PM, wayback71 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > >> Folks in Greece are rioting over austerity measures that the IMF and > >> other institutions want implemented. My question is what would American > >> do if austerity measures were implemented? Would they: > >> > >> A) check TV listings to see who is going to be on "Dancing with the Stars"? > >> > >> B) check Internet news sites to see if Lindsey Lohan is back in rehab? > >> > >> C) Open another bag of potato chips and another diet cola? > >> > > Most would do C, then A > > Of course there is some significance in C: potato chips were recently > found to be the most obese causing food and they finally figured (though > it has been known in alternative circles for years) that diet drinks > contribute to obesity. When body wants something sweet it doesn't want > to be fooled. > A geniune question since yo sem to know about this: what about stevia as a sweetener? Is that ok
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayahuasca Toxicology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Ayahuasca toxicity, > yes, in some Fairfield meditators too. > But generally the > toxicity of this stuff is something > I've run across in 'seeking'-people otherwise. It > can't be unknown because clearly > it happens. People wrecking their > physiology with Ayahuasca as a neuro-halucinagetic concocted tripping stuff. > With folks frying circuits in their nervous systems, discombobulating their > mental well-being and dis-integrating or screwing-up > their spiritual life big time otherwise. > > In reading > the internet links on Ayahuasca, evidently it seems that 'excited' ayahuasca > apologists have sway in most ayahuasca forums and web pages on the larger > subject of people wrecking themselves tripping on ayahausca. Of course > taking ayahausca is quite > a trendy new-age tourist industry obviously conflicted by large PR interests > of the people promoting it as something special. Both in Central and South > America but also in the Southwest USA. > > Practically, it would be interesting to see some clinical notes of ambulance > paramedics or emergency room psych-diagnosis of ayahuasca 'overdose'. And it > would be good to hear about ayahuasca from the experience of ongoing mental > health people as > they look at it and experience the effects. Clinical experience with it. > > I would speculate that there must be a mental health wreckage that is dealt > with in South America by communities and public health people there. Is it > clinically showing up here in the West or Southwest US too? Clearly it is > not good for some people as in, too much of a good thing that clearly is > un-spiritual in a mental health sort of way. > > Any reports of how the people are doing who got poisoned with heavy metals from the Indian ayurveda clinic product?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The IMF: What would Americans do?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > Folks in Greece are rioting over austerity measures that the IMF and > other institutions want implemented. My question is what would American > do if austerity measures were implemented? Would they: > > A) check TV listings to see who is going to be on "Dancing with the Stars"? > > B) check Internet news sites to see if Lindsey Lohan is back in rehab? > > C) Open another bag of potato chips and another diet cola? > Most would do C, then A
[FairfieldLife] Re: Help a Saint - Lose Your Badge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" > wrote: > > > > "Battle Of The Saints". C'mon someone HAS to make that movie! > > Already casting it in my head. So far I've got Samuel > L. Jackson playing Maharishi and Margo Martindale (from > "Dexter" and "Justified") playing Amma. I considered > John Goodman for Bevan but it just didn't work because > Goodman is funny. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: Ed Harris as John Hagelin?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Help a Saint - Lose Your Badge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > I started this thread by stating that there was a sign up in the dome(s) > stating that you would lose your badge if you helped a saint. I heard > recently that in the office where you go to get your dome badge, there is a > sign stating that it's OK to visit saints, but not OK to help them in any > way. But that is a huge huge change if it is ok to visit saints! Amma was just in Iowa this weekend, and there was a good turnout. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brain and Spirituality [was Oliver Sacks, "Summer of Madness"]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > snip So the big question remains as to whether the brain experiences and that style of brain functioning that feels spiritual just is what it is, or if it is a reflection of something "spiritual" going on that is more than the brain. If it not more than the brain working in a specific manner, are those brain states worth cultivating just for how they feel (cultivating in practices such as meditation or even artificially inducing them with drugs, magnets, electrical stim etc), forgetting the whole spiritual framework and meaning? > > I think they are worth cultivating. It is a crucial question as to what > intellectual paradigm might be best to provide the explanation for these > experiences. Spiritual paradigms are often worth investigating, but they are > highly varied because they tend to not be constrained in the way scientific > paradigms are, by specific controlled situations, and those pesky things we > call facts. Metaphysics is a minefield of explanations with minimal > constraints, while physics is a minefield with real mines that have to be > given their due. > > The path of enlightenment that each comes to think of when embarking on a > spiritual path usually begins with a metaphysical explanation of some sort > rather than a physical one. Bridging the gap between these two modes of > thought and our 'container' of consciousness (the great seemingly > non-physical mystery of existence); this seems to be the sought after goal, > but somehow, in the mode of thought, one or the other of these intellectual > paradigm categories wins out for most people, and an endless straw argument > ensues between the metaphysical concepts (and between different metaphysical > concepts), and the physical concepts (there are different physical concepts > but they usually get sorted out by scientific experiment). Response:Yes, one of these paradigms does seem to win out - and I continue to hope that one paradigm does not have to preclude the other. Our generation is the first to have had these very real metaphysical experiences and then years later found that science is able to point to the brain and say "this caused that seemingly metaphysical experience." Frankly, it is hard to take, even if totally fascinating. > > Maskedzebra mentioned Aquinas. At the end of Aquinas' life he appeared to > have an experience that silenced him. He saw through the metaphysical > claptrap, and saw that all his efforts were as 'straw'. He spoke very little > after that. Thus I believe Aquinas finally had the revelation of seeing > through the veil of maya. Response:This is interesting about Aquinas. Did he write of what that particular silencing experience was? Because he did not have the experiments of neuroscience to silence him. Perhaps the metaphysical words were too limiting for his final experiences. I do not think this kind of experience has ever been observed in a scientific environment because it happens without any warning. Someone would have to be being scanned in an fMRI machine just at that moment to catch some physical correlate of the mental event. > Response:This whole intersection of science and metaphysics is so interesting. Basically, we are finding that the experiences (unboundedness, universal love, witnessing) are only in the head and no matter how real it seems, it is not what it seems. This is also true of psychosis. Maybe true of every minute of our life. And, this "not what is seems" reminds me of the whole free will discussion we have had here many times: it feels like you have free will, but really the brain is rapidly taking in data and responding and creating a seamless sense of a deciding self which is an illusion. So not only does the brain create experiences which become our reality, it creates its own unreal self to experience and feel in some control of that reality! Oy. Personally, while I am fascinated by the science I feel a bit robbed of the mystery and hope and reassurance of a cosmic plan if science and the brain is all there is. I hold on to the conviction of many who seem to actually be enlightened and who are quite sure, for some reason, that the reality of unboundedness is not dependent on the brain.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brain and Spirituality [was Oliver Sacks, "Summer of Madness"]
or> /> > > It probably does have some relevance to what goes on on FFL. The > relationship of what goes on in the human brain to spirituality seems to > be a subject that is handled in a very circumspect manner in spiritual > circles. Science is impinging on spiritual experience more and more > these days as neuroscientists investigate human experience and its > relation to brain function. > > It is OK if a scientist says something like TM, or some other form of > meditation, like mindfulness, seems to result in more of a 'good' > neurotransmitter in the brain. But if a scientist says that certain > specific functions in the brain produce well known spiritual experiences > and that these experiences can be thus manipulated experimentally, this > is anathema because it looks as if spiritual experience is just > materialistic, mechanistic - the glory on high of the majesty of the > gods and the ultimate reality is suddenly reduced to hardware and > software, of a meat factory producing the crowning and supreme > sublimity. > > This intervention of science, of psychology and the more mechanically > invasive neuroscience, into the realm labeled spirit is sorely resented, > because it pulls the rug out from under this peculiar form of > specialness. I am always in the process of processing what we know so far about the brain. Wish I were 20 so I could be around another 80 years to see what happens - altho it is already clear that just about all the experiences we think are triggered by connecting with the transcedent are certainly explainable by flipping on or off various parts of the brain. So the big question remains as to whether the brain experiences and that style of brain functioning that feels spiritual just is what it is, or if it is a reflection of something "spiritual" going on that is more than the brain. If it not more than the brain working in a specific manner, are those brain states worth cultivating just for how they feel (cultivating in practices such as meditation or even artificially inducing them with drugs, magnets, electrical stim etc), forgetting the whole spiritual framework and meaning? Thus in the TMO, as an example, we have spirituality and > science seemingly side by side, but only if the spiritual construct is > allowed to trump science should they ever disagree, and that > disagreement is frequent. The half millennium battle that the Roman > Church has had with science is still going on, and science has won > almost every contest. And likewise, the scientific view inside the TMO > is an absolute minority among all scientists. > > It is wholly acceptable in the realm labeled spirit if spirit produces > the brain, but not the other way around. But it is all one, and if we > see a dichotomy here, it is because we are confusing our labels for > situations with the situations. > > http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of\ > _insight.html >relationship of what goes on in the human brain to spirituality seems to > be a subject that is handled in a very circumspect manner in spiritual > circles. Science is impinging on spiritual experience more and more > these days as neuroscientists investigate human experience and its > relation to brain function. It seems OK if a scientist says > something like TM, or some other form of meditation, like mindfulness, > seems to result in more of a 'good' neurotransmitter in the brain. But > if a scientist says that certain specific functions in the brain produce > well known spiritual experiences and that these experiences can be thus > manipulated experimentally, this is a no no because it looks as if > spiritual experience is just materialistic, mechanistic - the glory on > high of the majesty of the god or gods and the ultimate reality is > suddenly reduced to hardware and software, of a meat factory producing > the crowning and supreme sublimity. This intervention of science, of > psychology and the more mechanically invasive neuroscience, into the > realm labeled spirit is sorely resented, because it pulls the rug out > from under this peculiar form of specialness.It is wholly acceptable > of the realm labeled spirit produces the brain, but not the other way > around. But it is all one, and if we see a dichotomy here, it is because > we are confusing our labels for situations with the situations. > http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of\ > _insight.html > > > The foregoing link is to a video talk by a brain scientist, who had a > massive left-hemisphere stroke. She documented her experiences of this > and her recovery over an eight-year period in her book, My Stroke of > Insight. The video is a short 15-minute summary of that experience. > During nearly half of this period she experienced being the universe, no > sense of separation for many years, and deep silence. > > The book review Judy brought to attention above gives us pause about th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oliver Sacks, "Summer of Madness"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > Wow - glad the doctors finally caught that, and that your son was able to > stabilize his thyroid. thanks, he is fine now, but for a while there we were thinking major mental illness. Makes you appreciate medicine, blood tests, medications of this day and age. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Utterly fascinating review-cum-ruminations by neurologist/ > > > psychiatrist Oliver Sacks of a book written by a father about > > > his daughter ten years after she appeared to go suddenly > > > insane. May or may not have any relevance to anything > > > currently taking place on FFL: > > > > > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/sep/25/a-summer-of-madness/ > > > > > Fascinating. My older son became pscyhotic about 11 years ago due to > > "thryoid storms." The doctors never thought to test for thyorid > > malfunction and he went through over a year of off and on intense anxiety, > > shaking hands, racing heart, and off and on mild psychosis. Finally > > diagnosed as very severe, near-deadly hyperthyroidism. Treated easily with > > meds, but took a few years before his system recovered and healed. When > > mental problems present, physical causes should ALWAYS be ruled out first. > > In my son's case, they thought he had performance anxiety and so never > > checked for physical causes! (He was a pianist). Then wondered if he had > > psychotic depression. Finally figured it out, thank God. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oliver Sacks, "Summer of Madness"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Utterly fascinating review-cum-ruminations by neurologist/ > psychiatrist Oliver Sacks of a book written by a father about > his daughter ten years after she appeared to go suddenly > insane. May or may not have any relevance to anything > currently taking place on FFL: > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/sep/25/a-summer-of-madness/ > Fascinating. My older son became pscyhotic about 11 years ago due to "thryoid storms." The doctors never thought to test for thyorid malfunction and he went through over a year of off and on intense anxiety, shaking hands, racing heart, and off and on mild psychosis. Finally diagnosed as very severe, near-deadly hyperthyroidism. Treated easily with meds, but took a few years before his system recovered and healed. When mental problems present, physical causes should ALWAYS be ruled out first. In my son's case, they thought he had performance anxiety and so never checked for physical causes! (He was a pianist). Then wondered if he had psychotic depression. Finally figured it out, thank God.
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
> > Ahem. Rather than saying it again, I'll just point > to the post in which I suggested where MZ was at: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280593 > > What's most fascinating to me -- other than the > hypnomania -- is how *dependent* MZ seems to be on > Maharishi. I get the honest feeling that if MMY's > memory magically disappeared from the world, and no > one knew what MZ was talking about when he invoked > the name "Maharishi," he wouldn't be able to think > of anything to say, or be able to find anyone to > listen to it if he could. He'd be just what he is > in real life, and frankly, no one much cares what > a substitute teacher thinks about anything. Oooh nasty. I am not a sub tacher, but I work with a few. Like most of us, many have their own personal area of interest or passion. Some are downright interesting or creative, and use sub teaching to have a flexible life style so they can do other things than work. I have been stunned to hear some of the things they do in their free time - hike the App Trail, habitat for humnanity, big time bird watching, painting, major photography. Some are struggling mightily to get a bit of money so they can be at home when their kids are. Others are dealing with some personal fragility and don't want the responsibilitiy - at least for a few years - of their own classroom. Have a heart here, Barry. > > One thing you can say about Rick, and about Curtis, > and about a few others on this forum (including > yourself, Paligap), is that if their spiritual > teachers' memories were wiped from the record and > could no longer be meaningfully referenced, they'd > still probably have enough of a life to have some- > thing to say. I am not convinced that this is true > with any of the SEBs (and many of the non-enlightened > TM TBs) we've encountered on this forum. It's as if > their legends-in-their-own-minds "celebrity" was > completely dependent on associating themselves with > another "celebrity." > Honestly, Barry, I think most people on this forum don't derive any sense of status or sheen from their days with MMY. And I don't get that just about anyone here feels they are a legend in their own mind. Maybe it is just that I don't consider them anything more special than typical - and if they do, that is their problem and really out of touch.
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Hey, gang, especially when responding to MZ's VERY LONG > posts, but also just in general, could we *please, please* > remember to snip the stuff we aren't commenting on > directly? Will do. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi. I didn't receive answers to my last two questions, but > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A rare live footage of the greatest singer in the Western World
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > Judy, I heard a young tenor this past year at the Met - > > Joseph Calleja in Lucia Di Lammermoor. Check him out. > > I loved his voice. > > Oh, superb! Doesn't trump Bjorling for me, but he's right > up there. Gorgeous voice, lots of heart. > Just saw the new version of Master Class with Tyne Daly. Amazing. I never had seen it before. Not as good an as opera, but related...
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > Seems to me that MMY covered his behind pretty well about > > > "the real thing" claim by claiming that only if you could > > > perform any and all of the siddhis perfectly, on demand, > > > could you justify making the claim that you were truly in > > > UC (or at least perfect CC or whatever... nods to Vaj). > > > > The siddhis programme has been around for what - 35 years or > > so? To what extent have people's performance 'improved' over > > this period? Not all traditions seem to consider these kinds > > of performances or abilities as necessary for enlightenment. > > In Vasistha's Yoga there is the following comment: > > > > I shall now describe to you the method of gaining what > > is attainable (siddhi or psychic powers) towards which > > the sage of self-knowledge is indifferent, which the > > deluded person considers desirable and which one who > > is intent on the cultivation of self-knowledge is keen > > to avoid. > > > > It would seem the idea that siddhi performance is not universally > > regarded as necessary for enlightenment; other traditions eschew > > them as well regarding them as a distraction from the so-called > > path. > > The fascinating thing, for those who were around back > then, and who have a memory, is that Maharishi's view > back in the earlier days of his teaching (for example, > at Squaw Valley 1968) was *exactly* the same as what > Vashista says above. > > People kept bringing up siddhis on that course, and > Maharishi kept putting them down and strongly warning > people to have nothing to do with them. He described > them as a distraction from the pathway to enlighten- > ment, and turned every attempt to bring them up to > his buzzphrase du jour, "Capture the fort." Is there > really no one here who remembers this? He consistently > put down the siddhis *and* those who quested after them. Yes he did, you are entirely right. Capture the Fort was one of the fundamental principles. I think he also put down astrology didn't he? Not sure on that. He also tried many types of alternative medicines on the course participants on those long courses in Switzerland - various types of chiropractic, someone named Dr. Bloodworth? I heard from people sitting in the room with MMY at the time that he had lots of people presenting different healing and treatment protocols and that it seemed he wanted to try many of them out on us. These were Western aproaches, not at all Ayurveda. Back in the 70's. > > Until he figured out that he could make money by selling > a made-up version of them, that is. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A rare live footage of the greatest singer in the Western World
Judy, I heard a young tenor this past year at the Met - Joseph Calleja in Lucia Di Lammermoor. Check him out. I loved his voice. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0jthZ6Kxq4&feature=related > > Oh, my goodness. Great find. I don't think I've ever seen > film footage of him singing. > > Those ringing tones are so incredibly rich and free, they make > every other tenor sound strained. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Ground
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > > > Dear blastedactresses, > > > > > > I am fairly new around here, and I guess I haven't mastered > > > the method of tracking down a post that I once read. For > > > instance, your query about Werner Erhard. Can't find it > > > anywhere, and I have searched long enough. > > > > It appears all but one of her/his/their posts have been > > deleted from the Yahoo FFL archive. > > Yes, blasted was doing furious post deletions... not sure why. Seems like a > dumb-assed thing to do, IMO. In any event, blasted unsubscribed yesterday > evening. Blasted's last post, I think, was spent avoiding responding to the 3 simple questions that MZ asked twice and then I re-asked: 1. are you a graduate of est, Forum or Landmark? 2. are you here to defend Werner E? and 3. Are you or were you a subversive? When I wrote that the questions/answers seemed relevant to the discussion of WE and that it was odd that Blasted would not simply answer them, Blasted changed the focus to the words chosen: "relevant" and "odd," not to answering the questions and why she/he would not do so. I am guessing that Blasted refused to answer because the honest answer was Yes to at least one of them. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Says who?-Lurker alert
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > > > > Thanks for the link. Ch. 13 of that book, by Cynthia Ann Hume, is very > interesting. Response: Hume's bio says she has co-written with Dana Sawyer a book on the history of the TM movement in the USA. But I can't find anything published by them yet. It gives an account of RC and his impact on MIU in the early 1980s. I didn't know all that. I was on faculty at the time. I do remember that Greg Wilson was clearly discomfited by his encounters with RC, judging from his manner at a faculty meeting at the time. Greg in those days was something of an obnoxious bully (he's improved with the passing years, I believe), and I remember being rather surprised but not unhappy to see him getting so hot under the collar about RC. > > I also remember those students who were expelled from MIU for following RC. > One of them gained some kind of court order, I believe, that he thought would > entitle him to be admitted to the dome. He brought it with him one morning, > but security would not let him in the dome. > > MIU survived unscathed by the RC episode, as far as I recall, dramatic though > it was for those who were involved in it. Indeed, it came only a short while > before the Taste of Utopia course in December 83, which produced a large > boost in enrollment, an internationalization of the student body -- mainly > Europeans, I think -- and a widening of the degree programs that the > University offered. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > Enough is enough Turq, don't you realize MZ is a celebrity. The kind we > > rarely > > see on FFL. Its like Bevan, Charlie or Jerry decided to grace us with their > > presence, someone who actually did something in the TMO. > > > > To name just a few highlights the MZ's CV includes: > > > > 1. His UC was confirmed by the Rish himself, in front of a large group of > > witnesses, and then, in a court of law, declared invalid. > > > > 2. Author of 11 books. > > > > 3. Been the subject academic research > > > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/23659916/Sacred-Schisms-How-Religions-Divide > > > > (chap 13) > > > > 4. Successfully started his own cult, which included experienced > > initiators. > > > > 5. Actually took on the movement, unlike a lot of the complainers on this > > blog. > > > > 6. Met the Ayatollah > > > > 7. Actually had a confrontation with the man who commercialized > > confrontation. > > > > and so on > > > > Turq, please don't get me wrong. I've been a confirmed lurker on FFL for > > over a > > year and your writing is one of the things that brings me back when I start > > getting bored (although I suspect your writing would be better described as > > re-writing which as we all know is what good writing is). So holy jamoli we > > finally get a real celebrity and you and others turn your formidable guns > > toward > > scaring him off. My goodness, is he that threatening. He's just a zebra, > > granted > > he's masked. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God Gene Vaccine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:55 PM, wayback71 wrote: > > > I am hopeful about reincarnation, and God and Shiva etc. But not sure. > > Reincarnation sure solves a lot of the injustice and ugliness of the world, > > which makes me wonder if that is why I hope it happens.. Are you willing to > > say why you believe in reincarnation? > > > > > > > Because it explains how I didn't get behind as far as I am in just one > lifetime. I've been working on it. > Got it..
[FairfieldLife] Re: God Gene Vaccine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > If you found out God did not exist, is there still a > > > > possibility of an afterlife of some sort? > > > > > > Again, I don't believe in a God, but I believe in > > > reincarnation. One is not dependent on the other. > > > > I am hopeful about reincarnation, and God and Shiva etc. > > But not sure. > > Neither am I. It's a "working belief" for me (the > reincarnation thang, not God or Shiva), one that I > won't know the accuracy of until I kick the bucket. > Then if there's a big light at the end of the Bardo- > tunnel I'll be somewhat prepared for it. If there's > just a big click followed by blackness, well I won't > even be there to know that I was wrong, will I? :-) > > > Reincarnation sure solves a lot of the injustice and > > ugliness of the world, which makes me wonder if that > > is why I hope it happens.. Are you willing to say why > > you believe in reincarnation? > > Sure. Memories and flashbacks. I have experienced > flashes of being in the Bardo between lives, and of > both dying and being born, numerous times. I have > also had quite a few "past life flashbacks," in the > waking state, in which I suddenly found myself in > a specific location but in another life in that > location. Full visuals, looking down to see myself > in another body, being able to interact with people, > the whole bit. > > Exactly what these flashes are I cannot say, only > that I have had them enough times to think that they > might really be some kind of past life flashback or > memory of the Bardo process. Of course I would have > no way of proving any of these things, and wouldn't > try to. They're just a belief based on subjective > experience, and thus as prone to delusion as any > other belief based on subjective experience. Sounds interesting and at least a hands on history lesson! > > Besides, reincarnation beats the socks off of sitting > sexless on a cloud somewhere with a bunch of other > sexless beings, playing on a harp for eternity. That, > to me, would be Hell. :-) You mean singing in that heavenly choir is not your idea of Paradise? Unless they sang the blues? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God Gene Vaccine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > I find your idea interesting, Barry- what would loss of a > > belief in God do to a community like Fairfield. > > That's why I threw the idea out. I thought it would > be fun to trip on. :-) > > > If you lost your belief in God, would that necessarily > > mean that enlightenment does not exist, at least in the > > TM framework? > > Well, I don't believe in God and I still believe in > enlightenment, although I don't give it the importance > that TMers might. > > > Do they really go to the Dome to create world peace? > > That's what I was thinking. The virus spreads and all > over town people wake up the next morning think, "Oh > shit...I have to hurry or I'll be late for the dome. > No...wait. Let me think this through. I'm about to rush > around and skip my breakfast because I think I have to > go across town and bounce around on my butt with a bunch > of other people to...uh...create world peace. Hmmm. > What could I have been thinking? Honey, get the kids... > let's go out to a cafe for breakfast this morning." :-) Exactly. God and world peace were never the reasons and are still not the reasons I meditate. Or do anything, really. All too abstract for me, and I have enough reasons to meditate for myself and in my own life. Sounds selfish I know, but it is true. > > > And if they believed there was no God but meditating in a > > group did increase peace in the world, would people still > > go to the Domes - or become more "selfish" with their time? > > > > And if you are in middle age, how much more time would you > > devote to meditation if you knew that enlightenment (if > > you achieve it) died when the brain died and there was > > nothing else? Would you start to spend less time with > > your eyes closed and pretty much give up on the > > enlightenment? Or would you continue to devote hours a > > day trying to train the brain to function in a manner > > that creates feelings of enlightenment? > > Good questions all. I have no answers to them. > > > Or would people still head to the Domes because all that > > meditation makes them feel calm and happy? > > Would the absence of belief in a God and the feeling > that you *had* to do the things that He wanted you to > or expected you to do manifest itself as feeling calm > and happy, as if a great weight had been lifted off > one's shoulders? > > > If you found out God did not exist, is there still a > > possibility of an afterlife of some sort? > > Again, I don't believe in a God, but I believe in > reincarnation. One is not dependent on the other. > I am hopeful about reincarnation, and God and Shiva etc. But not sure. Reincarnation sure solves a lot of the injustice and ugliness of the world, which makes me wonder if that is why I hope it happens.. Are you willing to say why you believe in reincarnation?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Says who?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blastedactresses wrote: > > > > "Nevertheless, his basic questions are relevant: " > > > > ( "relevant"? who says what is "relevant"? you and maskedzebra?) > > > > " The fact that you did not reply to them is odd." > > > > ( Who is it "odd" to? > > > > Who says that it IS in fact "odd", you? :I just wonder what the answers to those 3 simple questions are and why you are choosing to not answer them, that's all. Because you don't answer them, I wonder if you are in fact an est, forum or Landmark grad or here specifically to defend WE. > > I am going to take the case that "odd" is ok on message boards like this > > as people often do not respond to nor make the effort to satisfy other > > posters every question all of the time. ) > > RESPONSE: Ah, the bottom line. We must therefore boycott all your Hollywood > pictures, blastedactresses. Because with this answer you are in contempt of > court. Why not take the Fifth? You are already in too deep. > > But know this, blastedactresses: assuming you ARE an est person and here on > this blog to defend the reputation of Werner, I reach out to you in all > sincerity: You are in a very subtle tranceto the detriment of your beautiful > soul. Werner, he is at bottom (although he doesn't know this) a real hater. > And I can't quite believe how he maims and wounds the innocence of human > beingness. Even as, like you, the est graduate feels no pain, and is on top > of the world. Compute, within the est universe, blastedactresses, this > exchange you have had with persons on this blog. You can't, because it won't > WORK for you. And WORK is what est, The Forum, and Landmark Education is all > about. > > No, Werner and Landmark Education will be taken downnot by me of course. But > the intelligence of loving goodness (my opinion here) behind the universe. > That intelligence hates Werner more than Wernerunconsciouslyhates human > beings. > > Had enough, blastedactresses? > > You see, the proof of everything I have said about Werner is the fact THAT > YOU DO NOT POSSESS THE MENTAL SPACE TO MANOEUVRE YOURSELF INTO A POSITION > SUCH AS TO KNOW YOU HAVE DEALT WITH THIS EXPERIENCE. This is the limitation > of the Werner universe: It can't deliver when it comes up against reality. > > Although of course I will repudiate everything I have said about you > personally if you JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. Are you seeking to effect a > counter-influence to what I initially posted about my experience with Werner? > and have been hard at this project ever since? > > "Everything is grace". I stand behind that. So this too is grace. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Groundless
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blastedactresses wrote: > > ( maskedzebra, you come across (to me) as being way too intoxicated by > your own conveniently vague "writing" and "brilliant opinions" to attract > me to any further exchanges with you on this topic. I started this exchange > by replying to you but I have nothing more to add and ask for no further > "elaboration" from you, for my benefit anyway. Thank-you. ) > Nevertheless, his basic questions are relevant: are you a graduate of est, Forum or Landmark? Are you here on FFL to defined Werner's reputation? The fact that you did not reply to them is odd.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God Gene Vaccine
I find your idea interesting, Barry- what would loss of a belief in God do to a community like Fairfield. If you lost your belief in God, would that necessarily mean that enlightenment does not exist, at least in the TM framework? Do they really go to the Dome to create world peace? And if they believed there was no God but meditating in a group did increase peace in the world, would people still go to the Domes - or become more "selfish" with their time? And if you are in middle age, how much more time would you devote to meditation if you knew that enlightenment (if you achieve it) died when the brain died and there was nothing else? Would you start to spend less time with your eyes closed and pretty much give up on the enlightenment? Or would you continue to devote hours a day trying to train the brain to function in a manner that creates feelings of enlightenment? Or would people still head to the Domes because all that meditation makes them feel calm and happy? If you found out God did not exist, is there still a possibility of an afterlife of some sort?
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > Are you incapable of snipping, or just plain lazy? > > Forgot - lesson relearned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Help a Saint - Lose Your Badge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 3:59 AM, maskedzebra wrote: > > >> I get the feeling you fell for the placebo and are still trying to > >> convince everyone else it's still pure Pfizer. But then that's always been > >> the dilemma of the awakened TM teacher or die-hard TM lover: can they stop > >> projecting some scripts from the TM screenplay onto their own (supposedly > >> autonomously Self-produced) "enlightenment"? > > > > Don't think I entirely understand what you are saying here, Vaj. Perhaps > > you could pose the question a different way. Oh, by the way: my > > enlightenment, it was REAL. > > > > People have different experiences with TM and the indoctrination that > surrounds it. One peculiar, but so far universal trend, is that TMer > claimants of enlightenment are presenting their experience(s) in terms of > their SCI-style indoctrination and rarely stray outside these acquired > beliefs. So, for example, MMY's indoctrination may state "Unity" is A, B, C, > D and F - while the living tradition of Advaita Vedanta or Patanjali may be > more explicit and say "yes, it is A, B, C, D and F - but it's also G through > Z". TM claimants of enlightenment universally adhere to what they were > conditioned to believe, and always miss key points of what the actual, living > tradition tells us these stages (or states) are. I agree that TM'ers know little about other traditions and the differences in defining states of consciousness. TM people don't have all the exposure that you do to your own criteria of the "living tradition." So of course they use the simple outline of MMY, unless they read about or try other traditions and adopt that tradition's lingo. S But i seems to me that all traditions have their own lingo and criteria. And as to science proving that the Tibetan Buddhists have the real deal on enlightenment and brain waves, I am not sure all that info is in yet. It may be different brain waves than what TM'ers call enlightenment, but the final definition of the variety of states of brain functioning is not by any means arrived at yet. At least as far as I know. > > The exceptions are largely lingo and buzz-phrases borrowed from Neo- and > Pseudo-advaita movements that are so trendy these days. > > So the point is people were given "something other" than the real deal, but > like to insist (nay, argue) for the reality of the placebo, "I didn't get the > fake, I got THE REAL PILL" (That's not say people don't gain relaxation and > various side-effects from TM, they do). But most are probably little > different than post-hypnotic suggestion. > > On the more scientific side (the TMO loving so much to use science as an > advertising and marketing ploy), we now have a very good idea what actual > "higher states of consciousness" look like, esp. in terms of EEG. > > None of the those traits have been seem in advanced TMers - at least not yet. > > I agreed more with your previous statement that TM style enlightenment more > resembled a type of psychosis - although hypomania might be a more accurate > pathology IMMO. >
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > Dear Rick, > > If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about > enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of > Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same > essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself > would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give > legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment > is, and what it was like to be enlightened. > > The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, > because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it > to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of > behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which > is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical > validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce > be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if > it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its > ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of > enlightenment? > > You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity > Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, > conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still > intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to > make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state > of consciousness as being false to reality. > > Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you > have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for > you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not > enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of > affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality > as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its > intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience > and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your > highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is > the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For > you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as > unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ > was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your > experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of > enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the > existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to > whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the > human person. > > You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your > religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that > religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment > of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that > religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or > rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. > > For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met > or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in > possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then > the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself > enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in > his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment > was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life > when I lived under that state of consciousness. > > No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently > cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it > is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid > test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a > true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that > this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect > representation of what reality is? > > By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests > who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience > with Maharishi? > > Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate? > > I suggest it has been absorbed into
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hope Without Magical Thinking
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Today for some reason I found myself thinking back to > > the first time I saw Maharishi, in 1967. At that talk, > > at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles, he said a few > > things that got me interested enough in the spiritual > > path that I set about walking it. > > > > I went to the memorial service on MUM campus last nite. > For Lilian Wallace, the Wallace family matriarch. > Very much an old TM/MUM trustees event, and some > of us other old-timers who have been around all alongside of this who are not > TM-Rajas. > > Very nice evening of primarily the Wallace family reminiscing about Lilian > Wallace. > She was a very large personality that was along the whole way behind the > scenes > of the TM-movement by virtue of Keith Wallace and Peter. In character it > seems she was a glamorous strong willed person of the mid-20th century. I > know her first in California at one of the Humbolt courses with Maharishi. > Was a big course with well over a thousand people. Most of us sat in a field > house on folding chairs for the lectures. Up front was an area of stuffed > chairs set out for the "rich ladies from southern California". They were > the supporters of the 1960's. They were of that generation. 'Made-up' and > dolled up they were taken care of up there. Initially Lillian it seems was > brought in and introduced to TM and maharishi by her kids, Peter and Keith, > she was of that time. > > The speakers at the memorial spoke stories of those times and her life. It > was fun. Especially was Peter going on about he and his mom being with old > Yogananda followers, learning kriya meditation and practices early on, > Buddhism, and going to india and being with saints there. Anandamayi Ma. > Peter was warm and animated. On the other side of the stage while Peter > waxes on about visiting saints in India are Bevan and Keith stoically > listening. It was a moment. > > Patronage. Was interesting to see the room, staging, and relationship of the > Wallace clan to it. Keith is first scientist of the TM-order. He is not > MUM, not a Raja neither. Bevan is evidently powerful. In the greeting of > folks there was some ring-kissing demonstrations of fealty with Bevan going > on as well as chit-chat. What do you mean ring-kissing? Can you be specific? The position of the Wallaces is a special place, emeritus in a way by virtue of Bevan evidently. > > Bevan batted clean up as speaker and gave a nice statement drawing on a > principle. It was nice and enlarging. > > I've gone to a lot of memorials of the meditating community the last few of > years. Mostly the folks who would attend are the closer friends or > co-workers of the deceased. Something I was noticing about some of the > memorials is that even with some of the most true-blue rank and file people > who have been around making things happen by deed of their work or money, > often the level of this upper movement is not present with the families and > friends of the deceased at memorials within the meditating community. This > particular memorial was of the Taliban-class of the TM-movement. Evidently > as a class they were present for this. It wasn't necessarily large. > > In looking, the two people who were particularly lit of the whole group were > Craig Pearson and Susan Humphreys. Hopefully they can outlive the larger > force of being there and usher a new feeling to the group. It's a pretty > cold group. Lord help 'em. > > - Buck in FF > > > > He laid out the benefits of meditation as he saw it, > > that it offered a way to draw upon one's own inner > > resources for one's sense of self worth and happiness, > > and not be dependent on others and how they see us or > > what they tell us to do for those things. I remember > > him speaking about how meditation (as he saw it) > > required no belief for it to work, and no leaders or > > gurus for it to work. All that it did require was > > actually doing the work -- practicing meditation. And > > I remember him speaking about how meditation could > > help to develop one's own creativity, and how that > > could help to resolve the problems of life by being > > able to create more effective solutions to them. > > > > At one point a person stood up and asked a question. > > He talked about a particular problem he was having, > > and how it had left him in a quandary, not knowing > > what to do. He then asked Maharishi what to do. > > > > Maharishi's answer was the most impressive thing he'd > > said in the entire talk. He said, "If I tell you what > > to do, all that will happen is that it will make you > > weaker. The next time you have a problem, you'll want > > me to tell you what to do about it again. You will > > become dependent on me. What you should do instead is > > meditate, dr
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Killing next season?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of wayback71 > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:57 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Killing next season? > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone help me out here - I just saw the last episode. Is the story of the > > same murder going to continue next season? Or is this story ended and a new > > murder and story going to begin next? > > > > Same case continued it seems to me. > > > > I can't figure out if Darren Richmond is guilty or was framed. > > > > I don't think we're supposed to know for sure. It looks like he was framed, > > but it seems more complex than that. > > > > Thanks, I just heard from someone that the next season is about a different > murder, but I was hoping to get some resolution on this one. We will have to > wait and see, I guess. Good show. > I just read that Holder's final words as he got into the car were, "Photo worked. He 's going down." I was not sure if he said that to his fellow partner in framing Richmond, or something different to his AA sponsor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Killing next season?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of wayback71 > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:57 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Killing next season? > > > > > > Someone help me out here - I just saw the last episode. Is the story of the > same murder going to continue next season? Or is this story ended and a new > murder and story going to begin next? > > Same case continued it seems to me. > > I can't figure out if Darren Richmond is guilty or was framed. > > I don't think we're supposed to know for sure. It looks like he was framed, > but it seems more complex than that. > Thanks, I just heard from someone that the next season is about a different murder, but I was hoping to get some resolution on this one. We will have to wait and see, I guess. Good show.
[FairfieldLife] The Killing next season?
Someone help me out here - I just saw the last episode. Is the story of the same murder going to continue next season? Or is this story ended and a new murder and story going to begin next? I can't figure out if Darren Richmond is guilty or was framed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confirmation bias [was:Speculating about CC instead of doing the work]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > > > > > Funny that the anti-Maharishi, anti-TMO, anti-"enlightenmentudeness" > > > > clique here continuously claims that those who make positive claims > > > > about Maharishi, the TMO and enlightenment are doing so to garner > > > > attention and feel special and elevated above others. The same could > > > > easily be said about those claiming to have had sex with Maharishi. > > > > After all, what would be more special than that? "Look at me, I boinked > > > > Maharishi...". Yeah, look at you, center stage... > > > > > > That might have worked better when she was actually in the movement. But > > > she took decades to process the experience it all and her account doesn't > > > come off that way. It is hard to discuss the book if you haven't read > > > it. But talking about it this way without reading it does reveal some > > > stuff about your perspective. > > > > > > The problem with the enlightenment claim is that it IS a claim of > > > intrinsic superiority on whatever you are knowing. This is just a > > > specific experience and only applies to it. And it was a special > > > relationship she had with Maharishi with or without the undercover > > > activities. But that doesn't give her the right to tell me she has > > > discovered the purpose of life itself. And thankfully she hasn't tried. > > > > > > > > > > > There is also a propensity among this anti-everything-Maharishi crowd > > > > to question any experience had in the presence of Maharishi. Why not > > > > seriously question these claims of sex? After all, this could be some > > > > kind of fantasy fulfillment for the women involved, after rounding for > > > > years and becoming progressively more and more unstable (as we are > > > > always told by the TM detractors here regarding the results of TM and > > > > TMSP). It sounds like confirmation bias to me. > > > > You need to read the book if you want to talk about it. A few people knew > > of this going on back in the 70's and everyone, everyone kept it quiet. No > > one wanted it to come out even if true. One, a very smart and devoted > > person I know, spent about 2 years years and their own money investigating > > the sex rumors because they had to know before they could go on giving > > their LIVES to MMY and his organization. > > I was aware of a similar person. Perhaps it was the same one. When he quietly > dropped out, it gave more weight to it -- along with other data points here > and there. Not a Confirmational Bias (CB) thing (which is humorous if we are > talking about the same person) because I was inclined not to believe such > things. Back then, around 77, I was open to both sides, and I was surprised a > bit at my reaction, and that of a close friend who revealed the information, > that it did not seem to make a huge difference to me. To her it was a much > bigger deal. > > >Judith refused to discuss it with back then, but there were other women to > >talk to. Generally they did not want to talk about the sex, altho they were > >clear it had happened. But when he found out the information and what he > >thought to be the truth, he quietly left TM, very quietly. Would not say a > >word, just left. I believe several other people left, quietly, for similar > >reasons. > > Some long term, early india course teachers seemed to drop out around then. > Seemed odd at the time. Its only (idle) speculation, but knowledge of such > events may have been a factor. Others, it appears, who did know, stayed in > TMO or at least its outer trappings, for decades > > > > > I heard of this back in the mid-70's and decided tWhat better way to > > imagine that your guru finds you special. And so I had to be careful about > > believing the rumors. But there is too much smoke around this issue for > > there not to be some sort of fire. Too many different accounts. > > > Yes. That is why the "he said, she said" views appear so simplistic. Its > ignoring the perponderance of information. Some people
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confirmation bias [was:Speculating about CC instead of doing the work]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > > > Funny that the anti-Maharishi, anti-TMO, anti-"enlightenmentudeness" > > > clique here continuously claims that those who make positive claims about > > > Maharishi, the TMO and enlightenment are doing so to garner attention and > > > feel special and elevated above others. The same could easily be said > > > about those claiming to have had sex with Maharishi. After all, what > > > would be more special than that? "Look at me, I boinked Maharishi...". > > > Yeah, look at you, center stage... > > > > That might have worked better when she was actually in the movement. But > > she took decades to process the experience it all and her account doesn't > > come off that way. It is hard to discuss the book if you haven't read it. > > But talking about it this way without reading it does reveal some stuff > > about your perspective. > > > > The problem with the enlightenment claim is that it IS a claim of intrinsic > > superiority on whatever you are knowing. This is just a specific > > experience and only applies to it. And it was a special relationship she > > had with Maharishi with or without the undercover activities. But that > > doesn't give her the right to tell me she has discovered the purpose of > > life itself. And thankfully she hasn't tried. > > > > > > > > There is also a propensity among this anti-everything-Maharishi crowd to > > > question any experience had in the presence of Maharishi. Why not > > > seriously question these claims of sex? After all, this could be some > > > kind of fantasy fulfillment for the women involved, after rounding for > > > years and becoming progressively more and more unstable (as we are always > > > told by the TM detractors here regarding the results of TM and TMSP). It > > > sounds like confirmation bias to me. > > You need to read the book if you want to talk about it. A few people knew of > this going on back in the 70's and everyone, everyone kept it quiet. No one > wanted it to come out even if true. One, a very smart and devoted person I > know, spent about 2 years years and their own money investigating the sex > rumors because they had to know before they could go on giving their LIVES to > MMY and his organization. Judith refused to discuss it with back then, but > there were other women to talk to. Generally they did not want to talk about > the sex, altho they were clear it had happened. But when he found out the > information and what he thought to be the truth, he quietly left TM, very > quietly. Would not say a word, just left. I believe several other people > left, quietly, for similar reasons. > > I heard of this back in the mid-70's and decided tWhat better way to imagine > that your guru finds you special. And so I had to be careful about believing > the rumors. But there is too much smoke around this issue for there not to > be some sort of fire. Too many different accounts. I have no doubt it > occurred, none. And I still do TM, and think MMY was pretty great in many > ways. He made some mistakes. One more thing, whynot. You don't need to read the book or even think about this or come to any conclusion. You can ignore it all and that is fine. And works well for some people. Might even be better for many. But if you really are interested in getting to your truth about it all, I think you need more info. > > > > No, it reveals yours if you haven't read the book. > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of our opinions, there is zero evidence of Maharishi having > > > had sex with anyone. Lots of hearsay, accusations, rumors and beliefs- an > > > airtight case within airtight minds- however the only things missing are > > > *facts* and *evidence*. > > > > So if a person witnesses something or is a participant, their description > > of it is not credible once it leaves their lips? We are only confident > > about things that happen to us but shouldn't be fooled by book learning > > accounts of history? That sounds a bit limited to me. > > > > > > > > > > Seems that going after this sacred cow of MMY having sex isn't in the > > > best interests of those with an agenda against Maharishi, doesn't s
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confirmation bias [was:Speculating about CC instead of doing the work]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > Funny that the anti-Maharishi, anti-TMO, anti-"enlightenmentudeness" > > clique here continuously claims that those who make positive claims about > > Maharishi, the TMO and enlightenment are doing so to garner attention and > > feel special and elevated above others. The same could easily be said about > > those claiming to have had sex with Maharishi. After all, what would be > > more special than that? "Look at me, I boinked Maharishi...". Yeah, look at > > you, center stage... > > That might have worked better when she was actually in the movement. But she > took decades to process the experience it all and her account doesn't come > off that way. It is hard to discuss the book if you haven't read it. But > talking about it this way without reading it does reveal some stuff about > your perspective. > > The problem with the enlightenment claim is that it IS a claim of intrinsic > superiority on whatever you are knowing. This is just a specific experience > and only applies to it. And it was a special relationship she had with > Maharishi with or without the undercover activities. But that doesn't give > her the right to tell me she has discovered the purpose of life itself. And > thankfully she hasn't tried. > > > > > There is also a propensity among this anti-everything-Maharishi crowd to > > question any experience had in the presence of Maharishi. Why not seriously > > question these claims of sex? After all, this could be some kind of fantasy > > fulfillment for the women involved, after rounding for years and becoming > > progressively more and more unstable (as we are always told by the TM > > detractors here regarding the results of TM and TMSP). It sounds like > > confirmation bias to me. You need to read the book if you want to talk about it. A few people knew of this going on back in the 70's and everyone, everyone kept it quiet. No one wanted it to come out even if true. One, a very smart and devoted person I know, spent about 2 years years and their own money investigating the sex rumors because they had to know before they could go on giving their LIVES to MMY and his organization. Judith refused to discuss it with back then, but there were other women to talk to. Generally they did not want to talk about the sex, altho they were clear it had happened. But when he found out the information and what he thought to be the truth, he quietly left TM, very quietly. Would not say a word, just left. I believe several other people left, quietly, for similar reasons. I heard of this back in the mid-70's and decided tWhat better way to imagine that your guru finds you special. And so I had to be careful about believing the rumors. But there is too much smoke around this issue for there not to be some sort of fire. Too many different accounts. I have no doubt it occurred, none. And I still do TM, and think MMY was pretty great in many ways. He made some mistakes. > > No, it reveals yours if you haven't read the book. > > > > > > Regardless of our opinions, there is zero evidence of Maharishi having had > > sex with anyone. Lots of hearsay, accusations, rumors and beliefs- an > > airtight case within airtight minds- however the only things missing are > > *facts* and *evidence*. > > So if a person witnesses something or is a participant, their description of > it is not credible once it leaves their lips? We are only confident about > things that happen to us but shouldn't be fooled by book learning accounts of > history? That sounds a bit limited to me. > > > > > > Seems that going after this sacred cow of MMY having sex isn't in the best > > interests of those with an agenda against Maharishi, doesn't support their > > story, their version of reality that they cling to so dearly. > > > And agenda against Maharishi. Hate to break it to ya Jim but the guy is > totally dead. We are just discussion different views of history here. And > by not reading the book I'm pretty sure it isn't us who are trying to cling > to some version of reality. Your attempts to discredit the book ahead of > time is very revealing about your own bias. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > [Rick wrote:] > > > > > > There were numerous witnesses, in the person of > > > > > > multiple women. Each had their own "events". > > > > > > Only one has had the guts to write a book. > > > > > > > > > > Well, so you now have several people claiming that > > > > > several different events happened, apparently > > > > > always in private. Still not anything more than > > > > > he-said, she-said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A few Good Books
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > Any good reading suggestions for the summer - fiction or non? > > I recently read "A Hole at the Bottom of the Sea" by journalist Joel > Achenbach, a very well-done blow-by-blow account for the general reader of > the Deepwater Horizon disaster. One big disappointment: he tells you almost > nothing about the operators of the underwater remote vehicles that actually > did most of the incredibly exacting physical work of rebuilding the wellhead > to stop the gusher. > > I read so much "nonfiction" on the Web that I stick mostly with fiction for > bedtime reading. > > "The Brothers Boswell" by Philip Baruth is a sort of literary thriller told > from the perspective of the brother of James Boswell, the biographer of > Samuel Johnson. Very offbeat, gorgeously written. I found it oddly > unsatisfying at the end, but it's one heck of a ride. > > I'm on a historical mystery kick and have been working my way through two > "historical detective" series that I've been greatly enjoying. > > One is the Matthew Shardlake novels by C.J. Sansome. Set in Tudor England in > the waning days of Henry VIII, they involve the attempts of a middle-aged > hunchbacked London lawyer to unravel various murders and political plots. > They're generally very well written with a great deal of engrossing period > detail (although the author has a few careless "tics" that can be annoying > and should have been cleaned up by his editors). Shardlake is a fascinating > character study as he develops through the novels in the series, a > good-hearted, honest, intelligent, reflective man with the best of motives > whose personality flaws often get him in trouble nonetheless. > > These are *long* novels, 500-700 pages, and while there's plenty of action, > they don't always move at a breakneck pace. You have to be willing to let the > author take his time unfolding the story and just let yourself soak in the > setting. > > The other set of historical mysteries is the Sugawara Akitada series, set in > 11th-century Japan, by I.J. Parker. Much of what I said above about the > Shardlake series applies to this one as well, but the setting is much less > familiar and even more colorful. For me, the main attraction here is not so > much the plots (which are intricate and certainly compelling) but the main > character, who is so enormously engaging in his complexity and humanity that > I actually feel bereft of his company when I finish one of the novels. He's > such a vivid personality it's hard not to imagine he must have been a real > person who has "channeled" himself through Parker. > > The quality of Parker's writing is uneven. It's mostly very good--and there > are some wonderfully lyrical passages--but every now and then you'll run into > awkward bits, especially in the dialogue. > > Both series, although they're very neatly plotted, are primarily character > driven, so you should, if possible, read them in order, as all the important > characters develop and change over the course of the series. More than enough > light but absorbing reading to last through the summer. (And all but the most > recent in each series are available used on Amazon for under a dollar plus > $3.98 shipping.) > > > This is my 50th for the week. See you all Friday or Saturday. > Thanks for the ideas - will start with Sugara Akitada series
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > My favorite such moment, just as a suddenly-triggered- > > > memory aside, took place in Amsterdam. Me and a bunch of > > > other guys had gone there to teach meditation, for free. > > > The idea was that we would go and offer free courses in > > > meditation, see who came, and then after a few months > > > he'd come over and give a big public talk. > > > > > > So, having the liberty to do so, I went over to Amsterdam > > > for a few weeks, planning to spend the first week teach- > > > ing before he arrived for his talk and spend the two weeks > > > afterwards teaching some more. As it turned out, other > > > students had the same idea about the "week before," and > > > they wanted to teach, too. I graciously stepped aside and > > > allowed them to do so, because I knew that I'd still be > > > in Amsterdam, and thus able to do some teaching, for a > > > couple of weeks after they left. > > > > > > This left me with not a whole fucking lot to do there for > > > that first week but wander around and get to know Amsterdam. > > > Good Thing or Big Mistake for me karmically. My life has > > > never been the same since. > > > > > > Anyway, the talk around the "teaching apartment," after the > > > students had gone home, was often -- among this group of > > > pseudo-celibate guys -- "Who is going to be the first to > > > hit the Red Light District?" I listened to their raps about > > > this but to tell the truth wasn't all that interested because > > > I got over my Red Light District fetish when I was 15. I > > > waited until they'd finished and then said, "The real ques- > > > tion is who is going to be the first person to hit the > > > coffeehouses and smoke some Amsterweed?" > > > > > > Dead silence. You could have heard a flea fart. :-) > > > > > > But then I raised my hand, and broke the silence. Everybody > > > laughed, because they thought I was making a joke. > > > > > > But that's exactly what I did. The next day I found a cool > > > coffeehouse, bought a big fuckin' joint of a brand of > > > Amsterweed called -- no shit -- Laughing Buddha, and > > > inhaled my first puff of that herb since the late Sixties. > > > > > > And it was good. :-) > > > > > > I thoroughly enjoyed having my assemblage point shifted > > > in a major way by the improvements that the Dutch had made > > > to lowly marijuana. :-) > > > > > > The point, and the relevance to the above stories about > > > running into your spiritual teacher after or during a cool > > > period of time for you subjectively, is that after the week > > > was up I wound up sitting across a table from Rama at the > > > five-star hotel he was staying at. It was just me, one > > > other student, and Rama. > > > > > > As you might imagine, I was sitting there thinking, "What > > > if he can tell that I've been toking up every night? What > > > will he say? What will he do?" > > > > > > He looked at me, not having seem me for a few weeks, and > > > said, "This place agrees with you. I haven't seen you > > > this happy and this full of light in years." > > > > > > Go figure. Go fuckin' figure. > > > > I know. We were so young then that we did not have the > > simple wisdom to ask the obvious questions, like what > > do you make of my current experiences (to MMY), or how > > can this be if I have been smoking dope for the past > > week? And we were settled into a mode of thinking that > > shied away from being so direct and even thinking like > > that (at least I was) and we were young and respecting > > our older revered teachers. > > That was certainly part of it. Thanks again for > "getting" what I was getting at in relating this > story. Part of it was indeed that reluctance to > ask the dude hard questions like, "Now wait a > minute...I know you have no hard and fast rules > about doing drugs, but how can you reconcile what > you just said to me with what you've said before > about grass lowering one's s
[FairfieldLife] Re: Help a Saint - Lose Your Badge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > You and I and others could offer our definitions, but what MUM means by > > this is that Amma is coming here in about a week, and they don't want > > anyone putting up posters, etc. Several people who had offered their > > support and who have been seeing her for years, have now withdrawn their > > support, although they will still see her, albeit with some degree of > > paranoia. > > > Fairfield's own version of "being in the closet." > > Sal > Just wonderingis there anything illegal about denying access to programs based on this kind of rule? Could someone make a case about this?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A few Good Books
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 5:25 AM, wayback71 wrote: > > > Any good reading suggestions for the summer - fiction or non? > > I'm reading Middlemarch right now, and so far it's been well > worth the (relatively minor) effort it takes to slog through > the local politics of the time in order to get to the wonderful > story that she sets you up for. I also just finished Unbroken > by Laura Hillenbrand and loved it~~reads like a novel even though > it's not. I also downloaded a sample of The > Help on my kindle, and while it didn't do much for me lots of > others seem to love it. Cutting For Stone, Half-Broke Horses, > and the Lincoln Lawyer have all gotten excellent reviews. The > Last Of Her Kind, which came out about 5 years ago, is one of > the best recent novels I've ever read. > > Sal > Thanks, I liked Unbroken, too, a real eye opener about Japanese camps. I will do Middlemarch (love that language - it slows you down and sts a pace that is luxurious) and Last of her Kind. I just finished Room by Emma Donoghue - about a young woman kidnapped as a 19 year old and kept in a soundproof shed. She gets pregnant and has a child and they live in the Room. Strange story. Also Jennifer Egan's A Visit from the Goon Squad - not great but interesting- lots about the music of the 70's and 80's since one of the main characters becomes a record producer. Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell is amazing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to say about it > > > because, after all, what is there to say? It was your > > > subjective experience and thus essentially valid; there > > > is nothing I or anyone can say about a subjective exper- > > > ience other than "That's cool," or "Whatever." :-) > > > > > > As I said, from my side I never experienced anything > > > similar with him. Once, in fact, in Fiuggi, I was > > > curious as to whether he'd notice anything different > > > in *my* SOC because I'd been witnessing 24/7 for about > > > a week, my subjective experience pretty much mapping > > > one to one to his descriptions of CC. As it turned out, > > > at the height of this experience he was giving advanced > > > techniques and I got to go up and sit by his side, > > > literally at his feet, and have him spend a few minutes > > > with me one on one, talking to me first and then giving > > > me the advanced technique. He didn't notice a thing. > > > > > > From my side, I didn't notice any change between full- > > > on witnessing and that profound, everpresent silence > > > you spoke of before while sitting a foot away from him, > > > or during, or after. No effect whatsoever, and as I said, > > > he didn't notice any change in my SOC from his side. > > > There was a line of others waiting for their techniques > > > so I didn't bother him with any questions at that time, > > > and before I had a chance to do so the experiences had > > > faded and my questions and any "confirmation" from him > > > would have been irrelevant. > > > > > > I've actually heard the same experience from others. > > > At the height of their highest experiences, mapping > > > from their perspective one to one to his descriptions > > > of CC, they got to be close to Maharishi and he never > > > noticed. So much for the notion of "like knows like." > > > Either that or he really didn't care enough about his > > > students to notice them, period. Or any other "explan- > > > ation" you prefer. > > > > I agree - this is odd, to say the least - that your Master > > (at the time) would not say something to you quietly just > > to acknowledge the experience you were having. > > Thank you again for yet another thoughtful reply. Yes, > that thought occurred to me, even at the time. And yet. > And yet I was at that point -- 5 months into "rounding" > and not yet made a TM teacher -- such a TB that I found > ways to "write off" this experience as Not Particularly > Significant. I mean, what could be significant about it? > One of his students having subjectively realized the goal > he'd been selling all this time? Even if the student was > just experiencing "early on" experiences of the enlight- > enment process and not fully established in CC, if you > were a Maha Rishi, shouldn't you have noticed? > > And yet. At the time, I was such a TB that I felt that > any fault -- if there was one -- had to be mine. Here I > was, experiencing word-for-word the goal that he'd sold > me five years earlier. What sweat off his balls was that, > I told myself. He has far larger concerns. > > Such is youth. :-) > > > It never occurred to me before that MMY seemed not to > > talk to people one on one about their experiences. > > It occurred to me, early on, because I had experienced it. > > > When I had one of my more major experiences, I was late to > > get to the lecture hall in Humboldt (could not figure out > > how to come out of meditation since I thought I had to > > cause the experience to end before opening my eyes! > > Finally just gave up, opened my eyes, and went to the > > cafeteria anyway). So I was late to dinner and then > > showed up at the lecture hall about 15 minutes into the > > talk he was giving. I was still having the experience, > > just the beginning of a fade. I walked in the door way > > at the back of this huge hall, and it seemed to me that > > just as I entered MMY turned his head and looked right > > over at me, right in the eye and nodded - I felt he > > knew exactly what I was experiencing and nodded
[FairfieldLife] A few Good Books
Any good reading suggestions for the summer - fiction or non?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > > > > Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two > > > > and a number here might argue they experienced number 2 or > > > > what is usually called "darshan" even with Maharishi. The > > > > guy did have some shakti after all. If some folks didn't > > > > experience maybe they hit him on a bad day or their nervous > > > > system was just too coarse to experience it. > > > > > > Ignoring the obvious humor bait of the "number two" > > > references :-), I'd love to hear from those who feel > > > that they experienced what I'm talking about with MMY. > > > I never did. > > > > > > The occasional light "buzz," or a feeling of upliftment > > > maybe, but the full-blown experience of one of his 3 > > > higher states of consciousness, never. IMO, what most > > > people I've talked to experience as "darshan" is an > > > occult buzz, not what I'm talking about at all. > > > > I almost always had that lightness and quieting of thoughts > > and a certain sense of the aliveness of the energy in MMY's > > presence. But twice I had something much more,: my awareness > > just shifted and became infinite, there was no "I" to find > > anywhere, just infinity, and that was so powerful and stunning > > that I was not aware of much else at all for a while. Not > > much thought, just a stunned wonder and taking it all in. > > Then, I as I moved around and had to interact, I noticed this > > silence and energy just everywhere and especially where I put > > my attention. These 2 experiences lasted a a few hours each > > and then faded (during which feelings of bliss and joy were > > intensely everywhere). I felt bereft when they were done - > > smaller and trapped in the cycle of thoughts and small > > awareness I believe that MMY's presence triggered them. > > They were of a completely different nature than the buzz or > > lightness I usually felt around MMY. They were entirely > > different states of awareness. > > > > I also had a few more of these more profound and intense > > types of experiences (way more than the buzz) without being > > in MMY"s presence, but directly after meditating, and once > > even before learning TM - at about age 18. And I think I had > > something similar at about age 4, after awakening from a nap > > in which I had dreamt that a snake was biting my left big toe! > > I think energy traveled from there to my brain and that began > > some experience. > > Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to say about it > because, after all, what is there to say? It was your > subjective experience and thus essentially valid; there > is nothing I or anyone can say about a subjective exper- > ience other than "That's cool," or "Whatever." :-) > > As I said, from my side I never experienced anything > similar with him. Once, in fact, in Fiuggi, I was > curious as to whether he'd notice anything different > in *my* SOC because I'd been witnessing 24/7 for about > a week, my subjective experience pretty much mapping > one to one to his descriptions of CC. As it turned out, > at the height of this experience he was giving advanced > techniques and I got to go up and sit by his side, > literally at his feet, and have him spend a few minutes > with me one on one, talking to me first and then giving > me the advanced technique. He didn't notice a thing. > > From my side, I didn't notice any change between full- > on witnessing and that profound, everpresent silence > you spoke of before while sitting a foot away from him, > or during, or after. No effect whatsoever, and as I said, > he didn't notice any change in my SOC from his side. > There was a line of others waiting for their techniques > so I didn't bother him with any questions at that time, > and before I had a chance to do so the experiences had > faded and my questions and any "confirmation" from him > would have been irrelevant. > > I've actually heard the same experience from others. > At the height of their highest experiences, mapping > from their perspective one to one to his descript
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two and a > > number here might argue they experienced number 2 or what is usually > > called "darshan" even with Maharishi. The guy did have some shakti > > after all. If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on a > > bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse to experience > > it. > > Ignoring the obvious humor bait of the "number two" > references :-), I'd love to hear from those who feel > that they experienced what I'm talking about with MMY. > I never did. > > The occasional light "buzz," or a feeling of upliftment > maybe, but the full-blown experience of one of his 3 > higher states of consciousness, never. IMO, what most > people I've talked to experience as "darshan" is an > occult buzz, not what I'm talking about at all. I almost always had that lightness and quieting of thoughts and a certain sense of the aliveness of the energy in MMY's presence. But twice I had something much more,: my awareness just shifted and became infinite, there was no "I" to find anywhere, just infinity, and that was so powerful and stunning that I was not aware of much else at all for a while. Not much thought, just a stunned wonder and taking it all in. Then, I as I moved around and had to interact, I noticed this silence and energy just everywhere and especially where I put my attention. These 2 experiences lasted a a few hours each and then faded (during which feelings of bliss and joy were intensely everywhere). I felt bereft when they were done - smaller and trapped in the cycle of thoughts and small awareness I believe that MMY's presence triggered them. They were of a completely different nature than the buzz or lightness I usually felt around MMY. They were entirely different states of awareness. I also had a few more of these more profound and intense types of experiences (way more than the buzz) without being in MMY"s presence, but directly after meditating, and once even before learning TM - at about age 18. And I think I had something similar at about age 4, after awakening from a nap in which I had dreamt that a snake was biting my left big toe! I think energy traveled from there to my brain and that began some experience. I never heard MMY talk about his darshan or that he tried to evoke these shifts in SOC's with his students. I assumed many people had this happen - one reason they stuck around even in the midst of the craziness. And we all assumed that happned all the time with those in the very inner circle like Bevan and John and skinboys. > > As you suggest, it could be that I just didn't groove > with him and did with the other teachers I wrote about > originally. Did you ever experience this (being able to > experience a full-blown higher state of consciousness) > while with Maharishi? With anyone else? Genuinely curious. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > I did not read this post, just the first few sentence - and > > I read nothing of any post between you and Judy. I stop as > > soon as I get a wiff of your interactions with each other. > > I think you need to stop reading her posts, and stop replyng > > to her and stop writing about her in your posts. And stop > > alluding to her in your posts or calling her a TB. That > > would, for you, put an end to it. Judy might continue to > > be angry and to didssect your posts, but you would not know > > about it or reply or engage. Prtty simple, really. > > I have to say I find it utterly fascinating that anybody > would ever tell anybody else not to read a third person's > posts. I have no problem reading the most hostile posts > directed at me; why should anybody else have a problem > doing the same? Judy, Barry had said that the way for "other people" to stop the feuding between the 2 of you was for them not to join and support you. My point, not clearly made, was that the way to stop it is for Barry to stop it. If his goal is actually to stop the back and forth between the 2 of you, he needs to stop it - either by not replying to or not reading the posts. I also mentioned that he needs to stop this referring to you as a TB and then basing entire posts around that label, that assumption. I do not see you as a TB and I doubt anyone else here does either. Its an inaccurate label to launch a discussion. > > And no, wayback, I wouldn't "continue to be angry" > because I haven't been angry to begin with. Ok Barry to me > is a freak show and a fraud. You can't be angry at > someone so helplessly twisted in their own egotistical > delusions. But boy, those delusions, and the arrogance > with which they're presented, are an irresistible target > for dissection. > > It says *volumes* that you believe the only way for > Barry to live with my presence on this forum is to > pretend I don't exist. That's the kind of thing you > might advise a little kid who's not yet up to dealing > with the real world. But Barry's in his late 60s, > for pete's sake. Why would you want to advocate that > he *increase* the degree to which he's divorced > himself from reality? Seems to me that's the real > "enabling" behavior here. Mostly my advice was supposed to be practical. If he can read your posts and not start up the usual banter, fine. If in order to do this he has to stop reading your posts, so be it. Whatever it takes to accomplish his goal. Fact is, I enjoy both of your posts when you don't refer to each other. > > A big part of the reason he's telling everybody not to > respond to me, BTW, is that if they do, and they're > not on his do-not-read list, he risks being exposed to > to some of what I've said in what they quote from my > post. He's just going to have to keep adding to that > list if he can't bear to read the quotes. > > I think it would be far better for him to realize that > there are quite a few folks on FFL who think he's a > jerk and to find out *why they think that*. This is > the reality. He can then decide to change his behavior > or tough it out, but what good does it do his growth as > a human bean if he just blocks out that reality? > Barry's growth is not my interest. I don't want to improve him. He is who he is as he is. If his goal is to stop the feud, he can do so, easily, on his own. And really, he does not need me to tell him that. He knows. I think he was trying to get a few folks who side with you riled up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it
> make the sound of Barry lying?"
>
> Many on this forum have said that they are tired of the "Barry-Judy
> feud," and would like it to end. I contend that some of them are talking
> through their hats, and that *they* are one of the primary reasons it
> continues. In this post, I will propose a way that I think that *they*
> could help to end this "feud" forever, by simply refusing to participate
> in it.
>
> I think that the koan above presents the case I'm going to make in this
> post. I think that the "Barry-Judy feud" to some extent exists primarily
> in the mind of the person who is obsessed with...uh...Barry. That
> obsession is never going to end. Judy continues to feel the need to post
> "corrective" or "deserved putdown" responses to anything I post, and
> does so even when I don't reply to them. As others have commented, she
> does the same thing *even when I am no longer on the forum*.
>
> But that's just one sad, lonely, obsessive old woman, hardly a "feud."
> WHY do occasional "outbreaks" of the old "feud" back-and-forth mentality
> still "break out" on FFL from time to time, as they have in her recent
> discussions with Curtis?
>
> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.
>
> The game, as I see it, is this. Judy feels the need to keep dumping on
> Barry. *Forget* the WHY of this; it's simply obvious *that* she feels
> this need, and on the level of an obsessive compulsion. But in recent
> months she has become frustrated because she can't draw me into the
> one-on-one confrontation and extended argument with her that she wants.
> So what she *does* about this is to glom onto a discussion on some other
> topic altogether ("Does a tree falling in an empty forest make a
> sound?"), and then re-introduce the B-word ("Doesn't that remind you of
> how big a liar Barry is?"). She finds a way to insinuate "Barry, and all
> his sins" into conversations with the few posters still willing to have
> them with her, conversations that had nothing to do with Barry, *hoping
> that the other party will fall for it and give her a chance to dump on
> Barry even more*.
>
> This is my honest opinion of what she does on a regular basis. She will
> in my opinion *keep doing this*. Nothing that any of you who *claim* to
> be tired of the "Barry-Judy feud" do will ever be able to stop this sad
> game.
>
> What you *can* stop is your participation in the game.
>
> If you really *are* tired of the "Barry-Judy feud," *stop being a
> codependent enabler of the feud by "piling on" to it and reactivating it
> every time she tries to get you to do so*. Just say No. Ignore the
> provocation, and the attempt to get you to re-launch a "pile on Barry"
> session, and turn the conversation back to its original subject. The
> solution to ending the supposed feud is as simple as that in my opinion,
> and here's why.
>
> From my side, unilaterally, I will try to ignore the silly bitch, and
> her compulsive "gotta get Barry" posts. This will require no small
> amount of effort on my part, because she's *such* an easy target for
> satire and derision. However, to test the theory that some on this forum
> really *do* want this silly "feud" that she attempts to perpetuate to
> end, I will deny myself the pleasure of pointing out what a nutcase she
> is. :-)
>
> From her side, I think we all know that she will continue to reply to
> many posts I make trying to "correct" them or prove them "wrong" or
> otherwise find a way to turn them into "a perfect opportunity for the
> putdown she has already prepared." I think that we also know that her
> full-time codependent enablers -- Jim, Nabby, Willytex, and occasionally
> others -- will play "pile on" to her obsessive "gotta get Barry" posts
> to give her the chance to post even more of them.
>
> But what are YOU -- the people who claim that you're tired of this feud
> and want it to end -- going to do?
>
> My suggestion is that you try the experiment I described above. For a
> month or two, ignore all of Judy's attempts to get you to "talk about
> Barry." If she tries to get you to participate in such "pile on"
> sessions -- and she will -- just ignore the attempts and, if you are
> enjoying other aspects of an ongoing discussion with her, gently come
> back to the topic. :-)
>
> Consider this a challenge to those who claim that they're tired of the
> feud, but who *enable* it to continue by falling for Judy's "But enough
> about ; let's talk about Barry" routine.
>
> Just say No, and see what happens.
>
I did not read this post, just the first few sentence - and I read nothing
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one > > > point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened > > > to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this > > > forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and > > > thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands > > > of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and > > > audio library." I could take them home and listen to them > > > anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually > > > did. :-) > > > > > > But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at > > > systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands > > > from "International" to send them our copies of certain > > > tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did > > > not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them > > > from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by > > > newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes. > > > > > > This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled" > > > tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that > > > were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat. > > > It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted > > > for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy > > > subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version > > > that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it > > > seem that there had been no editing. > > > > This did happen - tapes being recalled and some never > > replaced. > > The capper was that when "replacements" were made available, > the Regional Office or the individual TM Centers from which > the original tapes were confiscated *had to pay for them > again*. Yes, a milder version of local centers raising money for and buying land or buildings, only to have proceeds from the eventual sale of the center go to International. If they ever again needed a center, they had to start all over raising money just to rent something. > > > Do you recall specifically what was edited out on a few of them? > > When this "revisionist history" process first started it was > clearly tied to the recent "TM is a religion" controversy and > lawsuits in the US. Most of what was edited out involved MMY > talking about God, or putting down the Western version of > religion. > > At the same time, topics that deviated from the SCI or SIMS > point of view were edited out. This involved "SRM-ish" topics > such as reincarnation or saints and deities and talks in which > Maharishi used traditional Hindu terms for concepts instead > of English terms. > > Once the "first wave" of this revisionist history passed, and > the individual teachers and TM Centers realized they'd been > had, they wised up. When we at the Regional Office would get > the latest dictum from International saying that we had to > get all teachers to give back their copies of tapes X, Y and > Z, and we'd call the centers asking for these tapes, we'd be > told that they had gotten "lost," and that the teachers or > centers no longer had them. They were lying, and we knew they > were lying, but we actually agreed with their position and > reported back to Seelisberg what we'd been told. It was a > nudge nudge, wink wink kind of thing. > Yes, this happened. Do you have any knowledge about who exactly at International made these decisions about recalls? Was this MMY's idea?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Most who grew up in the US remember the old TV and radio > commercials "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" The idea being > presented in those commercials was that many people can't > tell the difference between a live performance and one > that was recorded on Memorex-brand tape. > > I think that the ad agency that thought this up was bril- > liant, because there are many people who *can't* tell the > difference. Furthermore, they would argue that they, having > only heard the recorded versions of, say, Segovia's work, > or Keith Jarret's, or Glenn Gould's "know" as much about > the work and the artist as someone who actually saw them > perform. With Jarrett, for example, who is famous for... > uh..."acting out" his musical performances by rocking and > swaying back and forth on the piano stool, and (like Glenn > Gould) uncontrollably humming along with his own music, > someone who knew only the recordings could have gained a > "feeling" about the music and the artist that was erroneous. > Glenn Gould's recording company found ways to *edit out* > his humming and moaning, so the Memorex set would not even > be aware that he brought that kind of passion to his music. > > Now think spiritual teachers. > > There are some on this forum -- and there is no need to name > them because you all know who they are -- who seem to feel > that having only dealt with the Memorex version of Maharishi, > they "know" the essence of "What he taught," and similarly > "know" things about him as an individual or about his state > of consciousness. I think this stance is...uh...self-serving > bullshit served up by those who are anxious to hide the fact > that they were willing to settle for the expurgated version > of the teacher they claim to "know" things about. > > You on this forum who met Maharishi, or who spent hours, days, > weeks, months, and years sitting in rooms listening to him > talk, or working side by side with him getting to see *how* > he worked, try to imagine for a moment the level of AVERSION > a supposedly strong TMer must have had to have meditated > regularly for 20 to 30 years and yet *avoided* ever seeing > him in public. It's almost unbelievable. Claiming to revere > someone as a great spiritual teacher, or even *their teacher* > or "master," and yet finding ways *for decades* to avoid ever > meeting him. And *then*, years later, presenting themselves > as "authorities" on "What Maharishi taught." Scary. > > When it comes to spiritual teachers, my contention is that > there is a difference between real and Memorex. If nothing > else, the Memorex version disallows any perception of the > teacher's "vibe," and what it was like to be around him. > How can the Memorex set even *begin* to claim to be know- > ledgeable enough about the subject of charisma or darshan > if they have never experienced it? And yet they do. > > On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one > point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened > to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this > forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and > thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands > of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and > audio library." I could take them home and listen to them > anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually > did. :-) > > But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at > systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands > from "International" to send them our copies of certain > tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did > not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them > from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by > newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes. > > This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled" > tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that > were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat. > It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted > for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy > subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version > that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it > seem that there had been no editing. This did happen - tapes being recalled and some never replaced. Do you recall specifically what was edited out on a few of them?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his > > own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally > > posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different > > tack on the subject: > > > > You Do Not Choose What You Choose > > > > Many readers continue to find my position on free will > > bewildering. > > > As I have suggested about other believers in the > lack of free will here (and that they have failed > to reply to), if they are so convinced that there > is no free will, WHY are they working so hard to > convince others (whom they insist have no free will) > to change their minds and embrace the "no free will" > position? > > If Harris is correct, his thoughts on this matter > and his ability to decide for free will or against > it are not his own. The decision was made for him. > He at no point had the ability to "choose what he > chose." > > If he is correct, all of the people he seems a bit > perturbed with for not understanding or agreeing > with his position *also* have no free will. Just > like him, they also at no point had the ability > to "choose what they chose." > > So why is he continuing to argue, as if they (or > *anyone* reading what he writes) had the free will > to choose to change their minds as a result of > reading it? Because he does not have the free will to decide not to? It just feels as if he does. > > Something in this scenario doth not compute. > > > > Most of the criticism Iâve received consists of some > > combination of the following claims: > > > >1. Your account assumes that mental events are, at bottom, > > physical events. But if the mind is distinct from the brain > > (to any degree), this would allow for freedom of will. > > > >2. You admit that mental eventsâ"like choices, efforts, > > intentions, reasoning, etcâ"cause certain of our actions. > > But such mental states presuppose free will for their very > > existence. Your position is self-contradictory: Either we > > are free to think and behave as we will, or there is no such > > thing as choice, effort, intention, reasoning, etc. > > > >3. Even if my thoughts and actions are the product of > > unconscious causes, they are still my thoughts and actions. > > Anything that my brain does or chooses, whether consciously > > or not, is something that I have done or chosen. The fact > > that I cannot always be subjectively aware of the causes of > > my actions does not negate free will. > > > > All of these objections express confusion about my basic > > premise. The first is simply falseâ"my argument against > > free will does not require philosophical materialism. There > > is no question that (most) mental events are the product of > > physical eventsâ"but even if the human mind were part soul- > > stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious > > operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the > > unconscious physiology of your brain does. > > > > Continues: > > http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/ >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Can Girish > turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? Consider that there are also a significant number of fairly wealthy Indians, in India and the USA. What is interesting, is that none in the USA seem at all interested in TM. But SSRS's US following includes these middle and upper middle class Indian Americans and Indians. I think word has spread in India that the TM org is not so trust-worthy - and with MMY gone, there is no inspirational leader to keep interest levels high.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa > > > to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) > > > > > > > "We're going to gather 9,000 people to regularly chant vedic mantras > > together as a group in Vedic City to conduct scientific research on any > > effects of such spiritual practices." > > > > http://www.invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We > > > > don't hear or see much about the girls there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house > > > > > 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of > > > > > people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people > > > > > dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does it work with the money now? > > > > > > If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE > > > > > > or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Dr Varma began by describing the history of the > > > > > > > > > Brahmasthan project, > > > > > > > > > which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space > > > > > > > > > for over 2000 > > > > > > > > > Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 > > > > > > > > > residential > > > > > > > > > campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya > > > > > > > > > Mandir schools > > > > > > > > > in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are > > > > > > > > > practicing Yogic > > > > > > > > > Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have > > > > > > > > > group flying in > > > > > > > > > many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each > > > > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read more >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally > > > > > > > > reached the > > > > > > > > number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a > > > > > > > > bit more, > > > > > > > > won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit > > > > > > > > wrong and > > > > > > > > discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, the action points? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
She took a few different brief courses with him and liked the practices and his teaching very much. REad a few of his books. Then took a day-long seminar on one of the techniques taught by an American trainee woman - and was very disappointed at her presentation of the knowledge (confusing and a bit disjointed and even inaccurate). she said this ainee had just ended a 30 day dark retreat and so might not have been at her best. Since the, my friend has gone to his center and taken a week long workshop. I am not close to this person in the last 2 years, so beyond that, I do not know. But she is a fine person with lots of integrity and I believe she felt she had found a very effective path for her. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:24 PM, wayback71 wrote: > > > And see post #194922 of a few years ago written by Vaj about Tenzin > > Wangyal Rinpoche. Vaj has spent some time with him. > > > How did that pan out for your friend? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
And see post #194922 of a few years ago written by Vaj about Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche. Vaj has spent some time with him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:05 PM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > I mean actually what you are describing sounds like the path Vaj > > > is on. > > > > > > And what do you know about the "path" I'm on? > > > > Doesn't sound like much to be honest. > > > Doesn't look like much either to be honest. Come on, the Dzogchen tradition, from what I could see online, looks to be a very rich and old tradition, the rainbow bodies and all, with a lineage and masters, structure and a variety of techniques and levels of knowledge. Not sure where Vaj fits in it. Thing is, all traditions of any religion including Tibetan Buddhism, are run by human beings, and so that opens the door to all sorts of behavior. I guess you just move ahead and go for it and have to trust people when you can, while keeping an eye open for the dark side. And get into a tradition, if possible, that also provides some moral guidelines to attempt to keep folks from being nasty. So scandal is not only in the TMO but seems to infect most of these groups to some extent. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Gandharva of our time
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > Schubert is the main man for all times to come. > > Beethoven in his present incarnation was longtime on Purusha and I had the > great joy of discussing music with him. He admitted to be a fan of Schubert > in this present life. > > Before my friend became utterly deaf, a sorry carry-on from his last > incarnation he gave many interesting insights into composition, his fields of > inspiration, his views on women and loosing his hearing, and his occult > relationship with The Masters of Wisdom and Maharishi. What is this? > > By the Master of Intonation;Frischer-Dieskau > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR9Yy7dqh4o&feature=related > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3WUUSOwjSA > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi5ep_ksZ7I&feature=related > > Die Sterne, The Star; > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKYLnikeA8E&feature=related > > I can listen to this story, Die Forelle, "The Trout" forever as long as it > Dieskau who sings; > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF9DrUXowBo > > I particulary like this recording: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DaGv6H9puI > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5gWlmJqaB4 > > Only one man can sing Schubert properly; > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM5rrLFPuoE&feature=related > > > Schubert; Der Erlkonig; > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XP5RP6OEJI&NR=1 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTItkFqmBk0&feature=related > > I don't know where Schubert is now. But with all the Love he expressed in > life it is must be in a nice place indeed. > > It's a great joy to have met Beethoven in Boppard. Having lots of old stuff > to straighten out, like we all have, he is today very much in the Movement > and is a full-time Governor. He is a fellow who takes the challenges of life > in this incarnation very very seriously. He's deaf as an oyster but does not > seem to care much. > > I also met Mozart in Seelisberg very briefly. He took a quick incarnation as > a woman, had Darshan of Maharishi, became a Governor, did a 6-months course, > then to everyones surprize, dropped the body of natural causes with a > heart-attac. > He/she was gone remarkably fast, mid 20's. When I saw her she was busy > talking to her Buddy. Her skin was remarable, she was shining as if on fire. > Only her/his Buddy would know the real details of that life. > > Then there is Bjorling. It is impossible not to include Bjorling > in the very great singers of this planet, and particulary in his > interpretation of Schubert; > > (Schanengesang) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Wt9FORobM&NR=1 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: MD moving back to Heavenly Mountain?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool wrote: > > > Just heard this from someone who lives in Boone. Word is it was purchased > outright. Anyone hear anything? Maybe this is where the funds for the sustainable building at MUM went. > > "Under the influence of maya, Brahman appears as Ishvara, the personal God, > who exists on the celestial level of > life, in the subtlest field of creation. In a similar manner, under the > influence of avidya, atman appears as jiva, or individual soul." - > MMY > I love this quote.
[FairfieldLife] Tibetan art at the Newark Museum, NJ
This museum in Newark, NJ has a wonderful and large collection of Tibetan art, including a Tibetan altar consecrated by HHDL in the early 90's and then resanctified by him again a few weeks ago. The handpainting in the altar room on the moldings, pillars and ceiling is gorgeous and colorful and full of symbols and animals and flowers and vines. Many many Thangkas and mandalas and statues, most brought back from Tibet in the 1930's from destroyed monasteries. Today, with everyone going to the beach in this heat, the place was nearly deserted and silent and special.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj never learned, practiced, or taught TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of wayback71 > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 6:02 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj never learned, practiced, or taught TM > > > > I believe the NYC TM center is one of the few who still have records going > back all those years. Some years ago I remember seeing thousands of index > cards, all filed alphabetically and going back forever. Somehow, they kept > all this stuff despite relocating many times. I remember Charlotte Peters - > great older lady with red hair and from the SRM days. I believe she > continued to check people (and perhaps teach) on a regular schedule for many > many years. > > > > Probably because it's the only TM center in the country that has had the > same center chairman (Janet Hoffman) since the 1960's. Exactly, and she seems very organized and careful. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj never learned, practiced, or taught TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Sal Sunshine > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 5:02 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj never learned, practiced, or taught TM > > > > > > On May 27, 2011, at 4:48 PM, wayback71 wrote: > > > Actually, I was initiating in the 70's and kept a record and index file on > everyone. But like many teachers of TM, when I moved I left the files with > the people who replaced me. People were mobile then and there was no central > repository of files since TM Centers also closed shop, relocated, changed > leadership. National headquarters in Pacific Palisades was supposed to keep > track of the info sent in on every person taught TM, but it seems lots got > lost, never filed (very likely), blah blah. The whole TM thing in those days > was filled with devotion and earnest young people doing their best to follow > the guidelines...but it was not a streamlined professional org. > > > > In addition to having forms lost or never filed at local or national > levels, there is another reason that I can think of that a person would not > be listed as having learned TM - and that would be if the teacher never sent > the money and forms in to national after the instruction. I am sure it > happened, but not too often - karma and all. > > I really doubt any records back any length of time > are kept or accessible in any way~~which is > undoubtedly why they ask you your TTC and > initiator over and over. Or at least they ddid. > A fun way to check would be to register for > a course and list a fake initiator. Bet that > unless someone in the office knew you personally, > they wouldn't have a clue. > > Sal > > I was in the NYC TM center one time, maybe about 15 years after I had been > initiated. Found all the boxes of 3-days-checking forms, organized by date, > dug through them, and found my forms. July 25, 1968, Charlotte Peters. > I believe the NYC TM center is one of the few who still have records going back all those years. Some years ago I remember seeing thousands of index cards, all filed alphabetically and going back forever. Somehow, they kept all this stuff despite relocating many times. I remember Charlotte Peters - great older lady with red hair and from the SRM days. I believe she continued to check people (and perhaps teach) on a regular schedule for many many years. .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj never learned, practiced, or taught TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > As I said before, Vaj has never learned, practiced > > > or taught TM. He also knows nothing about the TM > > > Sidhis... > > > > turquoiseb: > > You forget that I used to work at the Western Regional > > Office. At that time (the late 70s), there was no way we > > could check whether anyone had learned TM when they > > applied to go on a residence course. > > > So, as a computer professional, and a regional coordinator, > you did not keep a database of your student initiations? Actually, I was initiating in the 70's and kept a record and index file on everyone. But like many teachers of TM, when I moved I left the files with the people who replaced me. People were mobile then and there was no central repository of files since TM Centers also closed shop, relocated, changed leadership. National headquarters in Pacific Palisades was supposed to keep track of the info sent in on every person taught TM, but it seems lots got lost, never filed (very likely), blah blah. The whole TM thing in those days was filled with devotion and earnest young people doing their best to follow the guidelines...but it was not a streamlined professional org. In addition to having forms lost or never filed at local or national levels, there is another reason that I can think of that a person would not be listed as having learned TM - and that would be if the teacher never sent the money and forms in to national after the instruction. I am sure it happened, but not too often - karma and all. > > > Early record keeping was so shoddy that there > > were records kept on fewer than half the people who had > > started. > > > Incredible!!! Have you not heard of a file cabinet or an > address book? You took their money and you were their TM > Teacher, promising them enlightenment in 5-7 years fer > chrissakes!!! > > > I would be the first to give Vaj a serious truckload of > > shit if you could actually prove your claims, and I > > write this here as a promise, one that I can be held to. > > > All Vaj has to do is name his initiator and what TTC he > attended. It's that simple - I mean if he was at MUM, > Rick would probably know him, right? Or, at the least > someone would know him! Yes, if Vaj wants to clear this up he simply has to name his initiator and when and where he learned. It is quite simple. For some reason, he does not want to do this. > > But, what is really bizarre about this is that, what would > Vaj be, if it turns out that did NOT get initiated into > TM? That would certainly make Vaj a freak, if nothing else, > for posting to TM groups for the past ten years! > > We can already see what a compulsive freak Barry is, after > he quit TM practice nearly thirty years ago, and he still > thinks that posting to Yahoo! FFL is his most important > accomplishment. Go figure. > > It's funny, but Vaj won't admit that his gurus were Swami > Rama, Trungpa Rinpoche and Kalu Rinpoche. I wonder why he > makes the claim that MMY was his guru? > > Where is Dr. Pete when we need him? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" wrote: > > Hey Vaj, > I am NOT a TB. And I have read Judith's book. > TM works for me and I value what is has given me. Thats all. > And what you don't seem to ever want to admit is that TM and MMY may have > some value for some people. It seems like that possibility does not exist > for you. One does not have to be a TB to gain the benefits of TM. Millions > have > I am not here, as I have repeatedly said, to defend MMY. I am simply trying > to establish what is true and what is rumor. > > Now can someone tell me what the reference to Mahapatra is about? > He is someone I have spent some time with, so I would like to know what he > "supposedly" said according to the Vaj man. Then I can weigh in on what he > directly told me. Thanks Go to post #48039 for the Mahapatra info > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were > > > alleged to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the > > > lawyer who handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at > > > issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's > > > sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, > > > and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of > > > so and so" > > > > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I > > mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? > > > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > > wake up the kids. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" wrote: > > Hey Vaj, > I am NOT a TB. And I have read Judith's book. > TM works for me and I value what is has given me. Thats all. > And what you don't seem to ever want to admit is that TM and MMY may have > some value for some people. It seems like that possibility does not exist > for you. One does not have to be a TB to gain the benefits of TM. Millions > have > I am not here, as I have repeatedly said, to defend MMY. I am simply trying > to establish what is true and what is rumor. > > Now can someone tell me what the reference to Mahapatra is about? > He is someone I have spent some time with, so I would like to know what he > "supposedly" said according to the Vaj man. Then I can weigh in on what he > directly told me. Thanks Our posts crossed paths. Would love to hear what Mahapatra told you. There were a few posts maybe 3 years ago made here on FFL about Mahapatra's views of MMY. Someone will be able to get you the numbers. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were > > > alleged to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the > > > lawyer who handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at > > > issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's > > > sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, > > > and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of > > > so and so" > > > > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I > > mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? > > > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > > wake up the kids. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who > > acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged > > to have taken place. Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who > > handled SBS's will, and traveled to some of various places at issue and > > spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. Vaj's sources seem > > 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never > > identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" > > > You're confusing tow very different sources. > > And let's not mention that our Dear Richar N. sounds like a drooling TB. I > mena, how many of those are actually left who are hip to the news? I guess it depends on how you define "TB." In my version, a TB would never ever go attempt to find out more about the rumors of the murder of Guru Dev. TB's refuse to think about such info for more than a few seconds before relegating the "bad" ideas to the trash bin. They would never ever ask around in India. So, Richard to me seems like a person who really likes his TM and his TM memories, but feels uncomfortable with much of the organization's garbage - enough to ask some questions. Seems to me Richard is genuinely convinced he got pretty much the real story firsthand for himself and can live with that issue resolved. The womanizing is a whole different issue and I see no way a person can ignore the reports. What you do with that info in your own mind is enough material for many a dissertation. > > HINT: Richard, read Bourque's expose on the "life-long celibate". Time to > wake up the kids. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardnelson108" wrote: > > Vaj, > You ignorant slut, > > What is wrong with you? And why do make this shit up? Its complete lies. > > Don't you know that Dr. Raju was MMY's personal physician for years and has > been the head physician at a Maharishi ayurveda hospital in Delhi for many > years? If your story had any truth in it, Dr. Raju would not be working at a > Maharishi Ayurveda facility which uses the "stolen" formulas. He would have > nothing to do with the TM movement or its branches because he would feel that > MMY was a thief. But yet, there he is. > Have you ever met Dr. Raju? Been to his hospital? Of course you haven't. > Because if you had, you would know that as soon as you walk in the door, > there is a huge picture of MMY and in Dr. Raju's office, same thing. If Dr. > Raju thought MMY was a thief I don't think he would be sitting there with > MMY's picture and greeting you with "Jai Guru Dev". > Now I understand - I was pretty sure the people I have heard of going to see Dr Raju are TM devotees and would not go to someone anti-MMY. > As usual, you just make these things up, and quote them as if they are facts. > Then when confronted on your statements, you run away like a little girl and > never respond when criticized. > > Vaj, you are a liar and have serious issues. Why do you have so much hate > inside you? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > This is the guy Mahesh stole his formulas from, according to one of > > Balraj's students. His medicines were supposed to be used and made > > available to everyone, inexpensively. Mahesh tried to patent them and > > then sold them for very high prices (unusual for Ayurvedic medicines). > > > > Yet another story, as when given the opportunity do good in the > > world, Mahesh would instead look after his own best interests, even > > if it meant others would suffer greatly. > > > > Dr. Raju tells many stories about the lechery and destruction caused > > by the Maharishi. > > > > On May 25, 2011, at 8:21 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > http://www.jaim.in/article.asp? > > > issn=0975-9476;year=2010;volume=1;issue=3;spage=222;epage=224;aulast=B > > > rennan > > > > > > Brennan D. Balaraj Maharishi and the first clinical trial of > > > Ayurvedic medicines in the West. J Ayurveda Integr Med 2010;1:222-4 > > > > > > How to cite this URL: > > > Brennan D. Balaraj Maharishi and the first clinical trial of > > > Ayurvedic medicines in the West. J Ayurveda Integr Med [serial > > > online] 2010 [cited 2011 May 25];1:222-4. Available from: http:// > > > www.jaim.in/text.asp?2010/1/3/222/72615 > > > > > > In June 1984, I was part of a group of western-trained medical > > > doctors from six countries who began a 15-month course in Ayurveda. > > > In February 1985 as part of our course, we were invited to join a > > > group of Vaidyas in Brasilia, Brazil, for a two-week conference on > > > the indigenous health traditions of South America. It was here that > > > I first came into contact with Balaraj Maharishi, one of the great > > > Vaidyas of his era, and at that time adviser on Ayurveda to the > > > Government of Andhra Pradesh. > > > > > > In Brasilia, he soon came to the notice of our group, but in an > > > unusual way. Conference sessions would last many hours with the > > > Chairman, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and others speaking. As we sat > > > watching the proceedings, we could not help in noticing that one > > > person on the stage sat for hours hardly moving, or without moving > > > at all. The stillness surrounding his presence was palpable. Even > > > after the first session, our group all wanted to know who he might be. > > > > > > We were told that this was Balaraj Maharishi, a senior and highly > > > respected Vaidya, a great living authority on Ayurvedic medicinal > > > plants and their uses - the science of Dravyaguna. At the meeting > > > that was arranged, Balaraj Maharishi told us something of his life > > > story. As a 17-year-old, he had been travelling by train in North > > > India when he witnessed a train guard demanding payment for his > > > fare from a Sannyasi, something that never usually happened. He > > > remonstrated with the guard, but ended by paying the man's fare for > > > him. This had much amused the Sannyasi, who asked the young man > > > what he intended to do with his life. Balaraj said he just wished > > > to make people happy and so was considering music. He had run away > > > from home and was on his way to Madras to learn a traditional > > > instrument from a group who had recently visited his village. > > > > > > On hearing this, the Sannyasi offered to teach him something more > > > precious, and invited Balaraj to follow him. It turned out that he > > > was an experienced Ayurvedic doctor with life-time knowledge of > > > medicinal plants an
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting little story about Balraj Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > This is the guy Mahesh stole his formulas from, according to one of > Balraj's students. His medicines were supposed to be used and made > available to everyone, inexpensively. Mahesh tried to patent them and > then sold them for very high prices (unusual for Ayurvedic medicines). > > Yet another story, as when given the opportunity do good in the > world, Mahesh would instead look after his own best interests, even > if it meant others would suffer greatly. > > Dr. Raju tells many stories about the lechery and destruction caused > by the Maharishi. I believe that there is a group of TM'ers (possibly TB's) with money in Fairfield who see Dr. Raju regularly - getting lengthy PK in India at his clinic, taking the meds. etc. I have heard he is very skilled and effective. And a good person. Sadly, due to the contamination possibility with all things from India, Ayurvedic preparations are pretty much a non-issue, unless Dr. Ladd uses plants grown here and under supervision. > > On May 25, 2011, at 8:21 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > http://www.jaim.in/article.asp? > > issn=0975-9476;year=2010;volume=1;issue=3;spage=222;epage=224;aulast=B > > rennan > > > > Brennan D. Balaraj Maharishi and the first clinical trial of > > Ayurvedic medicines in the West. J Ayurveda Integr Med 2010;1:222-4 > > > > How to cite this URL: > > Brennan D. Balaraj Maharishi and the first clinical trial of > > Ayurvedic medicines in the West. J Ayurveda Integr Med [serial > > online] 2010 [cited 2011 May 25];1:222-4. Available from: http:// > > www.jaim.in/text.asp?2010/1/3/222/72615 > > > > In June 1984, I was part of a group of western-trained medical > > doctors from six countries who began a 15-month course in Ayurveda. > > In February 1985 as part of our course, we were invited to join a > > group of Vaidyas in Brasilia, Brazil, for a two-week conference on > > the indigenous health traditions of South America. It was here that > > I first came into contact with Balaraj Maharishi, one of the great > > Vaidyas of his era, and at that time adviser on Ayurveda to the > > Government of Andhra Pradesh. > > > > In Brasilia, he soon came to the notice of our group, but in an > > unusual way. Conference sessions would last many hours with the > > Chairman, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and others speaking. As we sat > > watching the proceedings, we could not help in noticing that one > > person on the stage sat for hours hardly moving, or without moving > > at all. The stillness surrounding his presence was palpable. Even > > after the first session, our group all wanted to know who he might be. > > > > We were told that this was Balaraj Maharishi, a senior and highly > > respected Vaidya, a great living authority on Ayurvedic medicinal > > plants and their uses - the science of Dravyaguna. At the meeting > > that was arranged, Balaraj Maharishi told us something of his life > > story. As a 17-year-old, he had been travelling by train in North > > India when he witnessed a train guard demanding payment for his > > fare from a Sannyasi, something that never usually happened. He > > remonstrated with the guard, but ended by paying the man's fare for > > him. This had much amused the Sannyasi, who asked the young man > > what he intended to do with his life. Balaraj said he just wished > > to make people happy and so was considering music. He had run away > > from home and was on his way to Madras to learn a traditional > > instrument from a group who had recently visited his village. > > > > On hearing this, the Sannyasi offered to teach him something more > > precious, and invited Balaraj to follow him. It turned out that he > > was an experienced Ayurvedic doctor with life-time knowledge of > > medicinal plants and their uses. In this way, as a teenager, > > Balaraj began to learn Ayurveda from a Vaidya Sannyasi, who had > > invited him to become his shishya (student) at their very first > > meeting. > > > > From then on, wherever they walked through forests, fields, or > > deserts of India, but particularly in the Himalayas, every time > > they met a plant his master would tell him all about it - names, > > family, genus, properties, uses, in what combinations it could be > > used, and for what conditions, etc. For many years, they walked the > > length and breadth of India, particularly the Himalayas, with his > > instruction continuing. He had thus acquired detailed working > > knowledge of some 4000 plants, or so it was reputed. > > > > One day in Brasilia, it was decided that the visiting Vaidyas would > > join a group of traditional practitioners from South America on a > > field trip into the jungle to study local plants. By the end of the > > day, Balaraj Maharishi had earned the respect of all. Whenever they > > had come to a plant whose identity or health benefits were u
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tales From The Afterlife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > I read Sum, too. Amazing. I also particularly liked the > > chapter Quantum. > > Skipped ahead and read it. Spit my juice out laughing > at the end. :-) I know - just amazing ending and so true! > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > Since everybody's talking about the afterlife lately, here are > > > a few excerpts from the smartest book I've read on the subject > > > in some time, David Eagleman's "Sum: Forty Tales From The > > > Afterlives." The second one got a laugh out of me when I > > > discovered it today because only yesterday I proposed a > > > similar scenario. > > > > > > > > > Sum > > > > > > In the afterlife you relive all your experiences, but this time with > > > the events reshuffled into a new order: all the moments that share a > > > quality are grouped together. > > > > > > You spend two months driving the street in front of your house, seven > > > months having sex. You sleep for thirty years without opening your > > > eyes. For five months straight you flip through magazines while sitting > > > on a toilet. > > > > > > You take all your pain at once, all twenty-seven intense hours of it. > > > Bones break, cars crash, skin is cut, babies are born. Once you make it > > > through, it's agony-free for the rest of your afterlife. > > > > > > But that doesn't mean it's always pleasant. You spend six days > > > clipping your nails. Fifteen months looking for lost items. Eighteen > > > months waiting in > > > line. Two years of boredom: staring out a bus window, sitting in an > > > airport terminal. One year reading books. Your eyes hurt, and you itch, > > > because you can't take a shower until it's your time to take > > > your marathon two-hundred-day shower. Two weeks wondering what happens > > > when you die. One minute realizing your body is falling. Seventy-seven > > > hours of confusion. One hour realizing you've forgotten > > > someone's name. Three weeks realizing you are wrong. Two days > > > lying. Six weeks waiting for a green light. Seven hours vomiting. > > > Fourteen minutes experiencing pure joy. Three months doing laundry. > > > Fifteen hours writing your signature. Two days tying shoelaces. > > > Sixty-seven days of heartbreak. Five weeks driving lost. Three days > > > calculating restaurant tips. Fifty-one days deciding what to wear. Nine > > > days pretending you know what is being talked about. Two weeks counting > > > money. Eighteen days staring into the refrigerator. Thirty-four days > > > longing. Six months watching commercials. Four weeks sitting in > > > thought, wondering if there is something better you could be doing with > > > your time. Three years swallowing food. Five days working buttons and > > > zippers. Four minutes wondering what your life would be like if you > > > reshuffled the order of events. In this part of the afterlife, you > > > imagine something analogous to your Earthly life, and the thought is > > > blissful: a life where episodes are split into tiny swallowable pieces, > > > where moments do not endure, where one experiences the joy of jumping > > > from one event to the next like a child hopping from spot to spot on > > > the burning sand. > > > > > > Egalitaire > > > > > > In the afterlife you discover that God understands the complexities of > > > life. She had originally submitted to peer pressure when She structured > > > Her universe like all the other gods had, with a binary categorization > > > of people into good and evil. But it didn't take long for Her to > > > realize that humans could be good in many ways and simultaneously > > > corrupt and meanspirited in other ways. How was She to arbitrate who > > > goes to Heaven and who to Hell? Might not it be possible, She > > > considered, that a man could be an embezzler and still give to > > > charitable causes? Might not a woman be an adulteress but bring > > > pleasure and security to two men's lives? Might not a child > > > unwittingly divulge secrets that splinter a family? Dividing the > > > population into two categoriesgood and badseemed like a m
[FairfieldLife] Re: Are Tornados related to Global Warming?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > I know a programmer who worked on some of the computer modeling of > global warming a few years ago. He said there was no straight forward > answer on but that the scientists were always annoyed with the press > trying to get one out of them. Exactly. > > On 05/24/2011 01:23 PM, wayback71 wrote: > > Good read.McKibben is so right on. I was watching TV this morning and > > a man in the midwest in charge of tracking tornados was asked if all this > > weather was related to global warming. He cautioned us all to avoid > > thinking like that. And he is right - no single event proves it, but > > someday someone will connect the dots. > > > > Chicago, Seattle and NYC all have climate change plans in various stages of > > development. The folks in the know know things are way past serious and are > > moving ahead, even at the city level of government. I think they have > > given up trying to present the science to the public. And the topic is so > > serious, difficult, sad and demanding of sustained thought, no one really > > wants to go on and on about it. People won't listen for long enough to get > > it. And certainly don't want any more bad news than is already out there. > > Not having a job takes precedence over climate change. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > >> http://action.350.org/signup_page/connections > >> > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Afterlife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > raunchydog -- Her Afterlife is a world in which women run everything. > > Hillary Clinton is President and Barack Obama is in jail serving > > consecutive Afterlife sentences for the murder of Bin Laden and for > > being (spit) a man. She still finds things to bitch about. > > This was my favorite. > > > turquoiseb (Barry Wright) -- You guys can write this one. It's only > > fair. :-) > > > Okay, let me take a shot at it. His afterlife is a daily running over > Edg on a Trikke, then going to have lunch with Curtis, and dinner with > Marek. Being asked to lecture on the superior qualities of Sitges, > Sedona, Paris, Amsterdam, and Santa Fe (not necessarily in that order) > . Discovering ever new Bruce Cockburn compositions. I would add to the above that he would have unlimited airline miles so he can travel, that he has a weekly column in a major newspaper or publication where he can write about his ideas and also interview anyone from any time in the world, that he can have dinner once a week with his dearest friends from all over, and that he gets the inside scoop on all the brain research being done over the next 500 years. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Are Tornados related to Global Warming?
Good read.McKibben is so right on. I was watching TV this morning and a man in the midwest in charge of tracking tornados was asked if all this weather was related to global warming. He cautioned us all to avoid thinking like that. And he is right - no single event proves it, but someday someone will connect the dots. Chicago, Seattle and NYC all have climate change plans in various stages of development. The folks in the know know things are way past serious and are moving ahead, even at the city level of government. I think they have given up trying to present the science to the public. And the topic is so serious, difficult, sad and demanding of sustained thought, no one really wants to go on and on about it. People won't listen for long enough to get it. And certainly don't want any more bad news than is already out there. Not having a job takes precedence over climate change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > http://action.350.org/signup_page/connections >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tales From The Afterlife
I read Sum, too. Amazing. I also particularly liked the chapter Quantum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Since everybody's talking about the afterlife lately, here are a few > excerpts from the smartest book I've read on the subject in some time, > David Eagleman's "Sum: Forty Tales From The Afterlives." The second one > got a laugh out of me when I discovered it today because only yesterday > I proposed a similar scenario. > > > Sum > > In the afterlife you relive all your experiences, but this time with > the events reshuffled into a new order: all the moments that share a > quality are grouped together. > > You spend two months driving the street in front of your house, seven > months having sex. You sleep for thirty years without opening your > eyes. For five months straight you flip through magazines while sitting > on a toilet. > > You take all your pain at once, all twenty-seven intense hours of it. > Bones break, cars crash, skin is cut, babies are born. Once you make it > through, it's agony-free for the rest of your afterlife. > > But that doesn't mean it's always pleasant. You spend six days > clipping your nails. Fifteen months looking for lost items. Eighteen > months waiting in > line. Two years of boredom: staring out a bus window, sitting in an > airport terminal. One year reading books. Your eyes hurt, and you itch, > because you can't take a shower until it's your time to take > your marathon two-hundred-day shower. Two weeks wondering what happens > when you die. One minute realizing your body is falling. Seventy-seven > hours of confusion. One hour realizing you've forgotten > someone's name. Three weeks realizing you are wrong. Two days > lying. Six weeks waiting for a green light. Seven hours vomiting. > Fourteen minutes experiencing pure joy. Three months doing laundry. > Fifteen hours writing your signature. Two days tying shoelaces. > Sixty-seven days of heartbreak. Five weeks driving lost. Three days > calculating restaurant tips. Fifty-one days deciding what to wear. Nine > days pretending you know what is being talked about. Two weeks counting > money. Eighteen days staring into the refrigerator. Thirty-four days > longing. Six months watching commercials. Four weeks sitting in > thought, wondering if there is something better you could be doing with > your time. Three years swallowing food. Five days working buttons and > zippers. Four minutes wondering what your life would be like if you > reshuffled the order of events. In this part of the afterlife, you > imagine something analogous to your Earthly life, and the thought is > blissful: a life where episodes are split into tiny swallowable pieces, > where moments do not endure, where one experiences the joy of jumping > from one event to the next like a child hopping from spot to spot on > the burning sand. > > Egalitaire > > In the afterlife you discover that God understands the complexities of > life. She had originally submitted to peer pressure when She structured > Her universe like all the other gods had, with a binary categorization > of people into good and evil. But it didn't take long for Her to > realize that humans could be good in many ways and simultaneously > corrupt and meanspirited in other ways. How was She to arbitrate who > goes to Heaven and who to Hell? Might not it be possible, She > considered, that a man could be an embezzler and still give to > charitable causes? Might not a woman be an adulteress but bring > pleasure and security to two men's lives? Might not a child > unwittingly divulge secrets that splinter a family? Dividing the > population into two categoriesgood and badseemed like a more > reasonable task when She was younger, but with experience these > decisions became more difficult. She composed complex formulas to weigh > hundreds of factors, and ran computer programs that rolled out long > strips of paper with eternal decisions. But Her sensitivities revolted > at this automationand when the computer generated a decision She > disagreed with, She took the opportunity to kick out the plug in rage. > That afternoon She listened to the grievances of the dead from two > warring nations. Both sides had suffered, both sides had legitimate > grievances, both pled their cases earnestly. She covered Her ears and > moaned in misery. She knew Her humans were multidimensional, and She > could no longer live under the rigid architecture of Her youthful > choices. > > Not all gods suffer over this; we can consider ourselves lucky that in > death we answer to a God with deep sensitivity to the byzantine hearts > of Her creations. For months She moped around Her living room in > Heaven, head drooped like a bulrush, while the lines piled up. Her > advisors advised Her to delegate the decision making, but She loved Her > humans too much to leave them to the care of anyone else. > > In a moment of de
[FairfieldLife] Borowitz Report - really funny
www.borowitzreport.com The May 14 edition is hysterical about Bin Laden and his porn stash
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday Gullible Fool
Happy Birthday GF and have a good day and year. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > Today's our co-moderator GF's birthday. Gave a good one! >
