[FairfieldLife] Re: "There is no God"
It is the tradition in western civilization as influenced by the Greek and Judeo-Christian culture to use human rational thought to prove truths in philosophy and thinking. It is a way or another way to describe "bliss" or pure consciousness in vedic thought. It was part of Osho's brand of thinking to be controversial and rebellious in his assessment of western and Hindu cultural ideas. For this reason, I have my doubts about his motives and accuracy of thinking. But Osho had his audience who accepted his thoughts. In other words, the sheep know the voice of their shepherd. It is refreshing to understand this idea in the light off "being established in the Self, perform actions." It is wise to remember MMY's words: Not thinking is only good while in meditation. Meaning, it is acceptable to use one's rationale and brains to prove the validity of human actions and thoughts. That is why he tried to prove the validity of TM ideas using science and physics. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,wrote : Thx, whether speculation or not, his assertion is that there is no "Creator" God who creates the universe and who is an all-powerful Personality like the Christian Yahweh or like Krishna. Then, he goes on to say that in his opinion, one should do away with the the term "God", since it implies a separate Entity, like Yahweh. Furthermore, OSHO goes on to say that there's something "better" than a God: Pure Consciousness. So what's your opinion, and why is your opinion not a speculation? Thanks, Shalom
[FairfieldLife] Re: "There is no God"
Thx, whether speculation or not, his assertion is that there is no "Creator" God who creates the universe and who is an all-powerful Personality like the Christian Yahweh or like Krishna. Then, he goes on to say that in his opinion, one should do away with the the term "God", since it implies a separate Entity, like Yahweh. Furthermore, OSHO goes on to say that there's something "better" than a God: Pure Consciousness. So what's your opinion, and why is your opinion not a speculation? Thanks, Shalom
[FairfieldLife] Re: "There is no God"
Osho was speculating. He really did not know what he was saying. But can he return back from the dead and tell his disciples that he was right? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,wrote : 4 min lecture by OSHO: "There is no God" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31WdaBusl2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31WdaBusl2Q Jai Sakyamuni Buddha
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary, gimmel, dalet (god, gad) :D
Trump wins, Hillary steals? HILLARY STEALS THIS ELECTION, 2016 LOOKS GRIM. BIBLE CODE REVEALS MORE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmqpvcMFmzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmqpvcMFmzM HILLARY STEALS THIS ELECTION, 2016 LOOKS ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmqpvcMFmzM SO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO WINS THE ELECTION? i told you months ago this would happenINCREDIBLE DETAILS ENCODED 3200 years ago in... View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmqpvcMFmzM Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary, gimmel, dalet (god, gad) :D
Well, I guess using his method, one find almost anything one wants??
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 8:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It I can't find any other newsource that quotes him saying things quite that extreme about God and Jesus and coimate change. THis feels more like something The Onion might write, but you never know. That was my impression. Let me know if you find out one way or the other. Seems too nutty to be true, but that’s the way the Right Wing rolls these days. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It Written by http://www.newslo.com/author/alex-kuzio/ Alex Kuzio May 12th 2014 WASHINGTON – Republican Senator Marco Rubio (FL), a prominent Christian and noted skeptic of climate change science, yesterday argued that Americans http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html should resist efforts by the federal government to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Sen. Rubio, who is a likely candidate for president in 2016, said that such programs would be “against God’s Will,” since “for all we know, God wants the Earth to get warmer.” Speaking at a luncheon with potential donors, Rubio admitted that “it’s getting more and more difficult to deny that the Earth is getting hotter—just look at the new NASA report.” Rubio was referring to two studies http://www.businessinsider.com/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-means-2014-5 released Monday which indicate that the “melting of the Western Antarctic Ice sheet is unstoppable, and the glaciers are doomed to collapse and melt into the sea,” which will raise sea levels significantly, leaving much of the world’s coastal cities underwater. “So yeah, I don’t deny it’s happening,” Rubio said. “But what we absolutely cannot say for sure is that a warming Earth is not just part of God’s plan,” Rubio explained. “God knows what He’s doing, and it pleases Him to see half of Manhattan underwater and Miami wiped out completely, then we cannot stand in His way.” Rubio is a Roman Catholic, although he and his family practiced as Mormons for a time. He has said that he believes “with all [his] heart that God still destines for us an even better future and the opportunity to continue to serve as an inspiration to the world.” Today Rubio said that climate change doesn’t necessarily dash the hopes for a better future. “God destines us for a better future, and rising sea levels are a part of that, then it must be for the best,” he said. Rubio’s remarks follow those he made on Sunday, when he told “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos that he does not believe climate change is the result of human activity. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it… [and] I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy,” Rubio added. Today the senator clarified those remarks. “What I meant was that Jesus Himself is probably responsible for global warming,” he said. “I can’t tell you exactly why he’s doing it, but that’s what Faith is for—trusting that Jesus is warming up the planet so we can all live in water parks or something equally awesome.”
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It
The answer lies on the website, itself: http://www.newslo.com/about-us/ http://www.newslo.com/about-us/ JUST ENOUGH NEWS…Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. Newslo’s “No Need to Satirize” brings you completely factual stories that are so ridiculous, they don’t need our trademark touch. Whenever you see #NNTS, you’re reading COMPLETELY real news that only seems too absurd to be true. Read the story on the website, and you can see what's factual and what's not: http://www.newslo.com/senator-rubio/ http://www.newslo.com/senator-rubio/
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It
I sent this to a conservative friend. He said: If you don’t like carbon dioxide I think you should stop breathing. The climate changes whether you like it or not. We’ve been through many cycles of warming and cooling since the beginning of time. The United States is the cleanest place on earth. Talk to China and India about pollution. Get them to agree to stop polluting and then come back and talk to me about it. I might be waiting a long, long time. The kind of changes you want would absolutely wreck our economy. You worry too much. --- I replied: Climate change will do much more harm to our economy than any efforts we might make to curb it. I just saw a National Geographic article which showed what the world would look like if all the ice melted. That may or may not ever happen, but scientists are now predicting a 14 ft. sea level rise in the next 100 years. Maybe more, the way things are going. What will the inundation of our (and the world’s) coastal cities do to the economy? This can be seen as an economic opportunity. When the Russians put up Sputnik, we rose to the challenge and were on the moon in a little over a decade. That had huge economic benefits in terms of technological innovations. We could do the same with alternative energy technologies, but the fossil fuel industry is doing its best to thwart that, and the Republican party is in bed with them. Meanwhile, other countries are forging ahead with alternative energy technologies, and will reap the economic advantage. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:05 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It The answer lies on the website, itself: http://www.newslo.com/about-us/ JUST ENOUGH NEWS…Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. Newslo’s “No Need to Satirize” brings you completely factual stories that are so ridiculous, they don’t need our trademark touch. Whenever you see #NNTS, you’re reading COMPLETELY real news that only seems too absurd to be true. Read the story on the website, and you can see what's factual and what's not: http://www.newslo.com/senator-rubio/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It
I can't find any other newsource that quotes him saying things quite that extreme about God and Jesus and coimate change. THis feels more like something The Onion might write, but you never know. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It Written by Alex Kuzio http://www.newslo.com/author/alex-kuzio/ May 12th 2014 WASHINGTON – Republican Senator Marco Rubio (FL), a prominent Christian and noted skeptic of climate change science, yesterday argued that Americans should resist efforts http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html by the federal government to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Sen. Rubio, who is a likely candidate for president in 2016, said that such programs would be “against God’s Will,” since “for all we know, God wants the Earth to get warmer.” Speaking at a luncheon with potential donors, Rubio admitted that “it’s getting more and more difficult to deny that the Earth is getting hotter—just look at the new NASA report.” Rubio was referring to two studies released Monday http://www.businessinsider.com/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-means-2014-5 which indicate that the “melting of the Western Antarctic Ice sheet is unstoppable, and the glaciers are doomed to collapse and melt into the sea,” which will raise sea levels significantly, leaving much of the world’s coastal cities underwater. “So yeah, I don’t deny it’s happening,” Rubio said. “But what we absolutely cannot say for sure is that a warming Earth is not just part of God’s plan,” Rubio explained. “God knows what He’s doing, and it pleases Him to see half of Manhattan underwater and Miami wiped out completely, then we cannot stand in His way.” Rubio is a Roman Catholic, although he and his family practiced as Mormons for a time. He has said that he believes “with all [his] heart that God still destines for us an even better future and the opportunity to continue to serve as an inspiration to the world.” Today Rubio said that climate change doesn’t necessarily dash the hopes for a better future. “God destines us for a better future, and rising sea levels are a part of that, then it must be for the best,” he said. Rubio’s remarks follow those he made on Sunday, when he told “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos that he does not believe climate change is the result of human activity. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it… [and] I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy,” Rubio added. Today the senator clarified those remarks. “What I meant was that Jesus Himself is probably responsible for global warming,” he said. “I can’t tell you exactly why he’s doing it, but that’s what Faith is for—trusting that Jesus is warming up the planet so we can all live in water parks or something equally awesome.”
[FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?
Like trying to find a needle in a haystack, with a bulldozer. Oh well, I suppose it at least gets the silly scientists thinking about God. May they stumble on! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : That's one of the questions posed by this excellent article from Salon.com. Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates visions of God http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/ http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/ Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates vision... Major figures like Joan of Arc and Dostoyevsky claimed supernatural visions. Why their brains could hold the answer View on www.salon.com http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/; class=ygrps-yiv-957161395link-enhancr-card-url ygrps-yiv-957161395link-enhancr-element Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : That's one of the questions posed by this excellent article from Salon.com. Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates visions of God http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/ http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/ Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates vision... Major figures like Joan of Arc and Dostoyevsky claimed supernatural visions. Why their brains could hold the answer View on www.salon.com http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/; class=ygrps-yiv-97846083link-enhancr-card-url ygrps-yiv-97846083link-enhancr-element Preview by Yahoo Interesting article, it almost makes one want to become epileptic. However, I am not sure what Bawee's point is by posting this. I would think most people realize that as long as most of us remain standing here on this planet our ultimate sensory organ is our brain. Of course our perceptions, be they as mundane as tasting orange juice or as profound as having dinner with Christ himself while floating in some cloud, are governed by the activity of our brains. We sort of had this conversation back when we were all talking about near death experiences here. Just because you can link a cosmic or unusual experience to a brain function doesn't invalidate it. Of course you can correspond certain activity in the brain or release of chemicals to what it is you are experiencing. There will usually always be some relationship between the brain and what it is one is saying, doing, feeling. (I think the guy who wrote Proof of Heaven has since been debunked so his time being brain dead while in his coma discounts his having remained conscious even though his brain was 100% non-functioning.) Unfortunately, the cases cited in this article are all of people who lived before EEG machines and more modern medicine that could have proved, without a doubt, the existence of epilepsy. So what we are left with is conjecture, but interesting nevertheless.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?
hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person lives a beneficial life. It would be great to study contemporary people like Jill Bolte Taylor, author of My Stroke of Genius. On Monday, May 12, 2014 8:38 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : That's one of the questions posed by this excellent article from Salon.com. Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates visions of God Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates vision... Major figures like Joan of Arc and Dostoyevsky claimed supernatural visions. Why their brains could hold the answer View on www.salon.com Preview by Yahoo Interesting article, it almost makes one want to become epileptic. However, I am not sure what Bawee's point is by posting this. I would think most people realize that as long as most of us remain standing here on this planet our ultimate sensory organ is our brain. Of course our perceptions, be they as mundane as tasting orange juice or as profound as having dinner with Christ himself while floating in some cloud, are governed by the activity of our brains. We sort of had this conversation back when we were all talking about near death experiences here. Just because you can link a cosmic or unusual experience to a brain function doesn't invalidate it. Of course you can correspond certain activity in the brain or release of chemicals to what it is you are experiencing. There will usually always be some relationship between the brain and what it is one is saying, doing, feeling. (I think the guy who wrote Proof of Heaven has since been debunked so his time being brain dead while in his coma discounts his having remained conscious even though his brain was 100% non-functioning.) Unfortunately, the cases cited in this article are all of people who lived before EEG machines and more modern medicine that could have proved, without a doubt, the existence of epilepsy. So what we are left with is conjecture, but interesting nevertheless.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person lives a beneficial life. I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think what Bawee was doing here was his usual let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. He was posting this to imply that visionaries or those who have had spiritual or revelatory experiences were most likely diseased in some way. I wonder if he was frothing at the mouth and writhing while witnessing Rama levitate. It would be great to study contemporary people like Jill Bolte Taylor, author of My Stroke of Genius. On Monday, May 12, 2014 8:38 AM, awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : That's one of the questions posed by this excellent article from Salon.com. Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates visions of God http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/ http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/ Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates vision... Major figures like Joan of Arc and Dostoyevsky claimed supernatural visions. Why their brains could hold the answer View on www.salon.com http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/ Preview by Yahoo Interesting article, it almost makes one want to become epileptic. However, I am not sure what Bawee's point is by posting this. I would think most people realize that as long as most of us remain standing here on this planet our ultimate sensory organ is our brain. Of course our perceptions, be they as mundane as tasting orange juice or as profound as having dinner with Christ himself while floating in some cloud, are governed by the activity of our brains. We sort of had this conversation back when we were all talking about near death experiences here. Just because you can link a cosmic or unusual experience to a brain function doesn't invalidate it. Of course you can correspond certain activity in the brain or release of chemicals to what it is you are experiencing. There will usually always be some relationship between the brain and what it is one is saying, doing, feeling. (I think the guy who wrote Proof of Heaven has since been debunked so his time being brain dead while in his coma discounts his having remained conscious even though his brain was 100% non-functioning.) Unfortunately, the cases cited in this article are all of people who lived before EEG machines and more modern medicine that could have proved, without a doubt, the existence of epilepsy. So what we are left with is conjecture, but interesting nevertheless.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?
From: awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person lives a beneficial life. I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think what Bawee was doing here was his usual let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. If so, what does it say about YOU that you got your buttons pushed yet again? :-) :-) :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?
Barry just hates it when people laugh at his button-pushing attempts. That's why he snipped this from his quote of Ann's post: He was posting this to imply that visionaries or those who have had spiritual or revelatory experiences were most likely diseased in some way. I wonder if he was frothing at the mouth and writhing while witnessing Rama levitate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person lives a beneficial life. I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think what Bawee was doing here was his usual let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. If so, what does it say about YOU that you got your buttons pushed yet again? :-) :-) :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person lives a beneficial life. I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think what Bawee was doing here was his usual let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. If so, what does it say about YOU that you got your buttons pushed yet again? :-) :-) :-) You couldn't find my button if I guided your hand there myself. Dream on loser, you haven't even figured out the first thing about me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no God.
Why would you believe watermelon? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCL4dXUtblg
[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no God.
That was terrific. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCL4dXUtblg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative. I am not sure about this. For one thing, don't Christians take their Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity? What do you think they take him as? That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the Christians see him more than a prophet, but equal to God. 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. 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? I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education system. ~Avram3 Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God. Why do you think people pray to Jesus? The son of God...I have never thought he was God. Never. I refuse. Read from Sentence 3 through the end. Pretty much sums it up don't ya think? Or? What else? Duality/Reality? Do we ever defeat the ego? Whaddya think? Didn't Jim used to address this kind of stuff? Fundamental Christians believe that Jesus is the ONLY son of God, this(IMO)is mistaken. We all have the power to realize our 'Son-ship' with God, and, in time, will all realize this latent potential as this, is, the Divine Plan. Yes, and the Christian Bible distinguishes between the Sons of Man (regular humans) and the Son of God (Jesus). More liberal Christians would agree with you, that each soul has the capacity to recognize that they really are a Son of God, that our idea of Enlightenment is the equivalent of becoming a Son of God. The ego can never say it is God, better to say God is the 'I' in meperhaps. Like you suggested, the ego stands as the imposter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: snip 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.  Tee Hee.  When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you! Reading Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing. From: Susan wayback71@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  I am not sure about this. For one thing, don't Christians take their Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity? 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. 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. 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. 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?  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.  I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education system.  ~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 your sins by Jesus and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast to more mainstream Christianity, where many churches believe that there are many paths to God, but theirs is Jesus. They tend to think that good people of many faiths will be with God after death, whether thru Jesus or their own faith. One of the main ideas in Christianity is that good works do not earn you admission to Heaven. It is the Belief that counts, even if that belief in God/Jesus/Holy Ghost happens in the last minutes of a nasty life. So, if you accept Jesus then, and really believe, you are saved. As opposed to Judaism, where faith is not an issue, but observances are important.  Why do you think people pray to Jesus? They pray to Jesus for assistance or comfort. And Catholics also pray to the mother of Jesus (Mary) and a whole host of saints (formerly alive people who have been granted sainthood due to performing miracles). They believe that Jesus or Mary or saints or God can intervene in our affairs. Similar to Hindus doing yagyas and making offerings to get some assistance and to change earthly circumstances. The son of God...I have never thought he was God.  Never.  I refuse.  Read from Sentence 3 through the end.  Pretty much sums it up don't ya think?  Or? What else?  Duality/Reality?  Do we ever defeat the ego?  Whaddya think? Sounds as if Jesus had some good spiritual experiences and was charismatic and had some followers who got some real benefits from his very powerful darshan. People probably misunderstood much of what he talked about. Didn't Jim used to address this kind of stuff? 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative. I am not sure about this. For one thing, don't Christians take their Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity? 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. 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. You might like the Hindu anecdote of SAT, TAT, OM, or the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father being the unmanifest Being, the OM Mother Divine(Prakriti)and the Son being the pure reflection (formless) of Being (IN CREATION) also what MMY called Brahm (pure light, the light of God). Yes, I do. I had forgotten this, thanks for bringing it up. That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the Christians see him more than a prophet, but equal to God. 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. 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? 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. I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education system. ~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 your sins by Jesus and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast to more mainstream Christianity, where many churches believe that there are many paths to God, but theirs is Jesus. They tend to think that good people of many faiths will be with God after death, whether thru Jesus or their own faith. One of the main ideas in Christianity is that good works do not earn you admission to Heaven. It is the Belief that counts, even if that belief in God/Jesus/Holy Ghost happens in the last minutes of a nasty life. So, if you accept Jesus then, and really believe, you are saved. As opposed to Judaism, where faith is not an issue, but observances are important. Why do you think people pray to Jesus? They pray to Jesus for assistance or comfort. And Catholics also pray to the mother of Jesus (Mary) and a whole host of saints (formerly alive people who have been granted sainthood due to performing miracles). They believe that Jesus or Mary or saints or God can intervene in our affairs. Similar to Hindus doing yagyas and making offerings to get some assistance and to change earthly circumstances. The son of God...I have never thought he was God. Never. I refuse. Read from Sentence 3 through the end. Pretty much sums it up don't ya think? Or? What else? Duality/Reality? Do we ever defeat the ego? Whaddya think? Sounds as if Jesus had some good spiritual experiences and was charismatic and had some followers who got some real benefits from his very powerful darshan. People probably misunderstood much of what he talked about. Didn't Jim used to address this kind of stuff? 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
Hm.when you are not in your believing in spirituality mode, what do you think? From: Susan waybac...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: snip 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.  Tee Hee.  When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you! Reading Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing. From: Susan wayback71@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  I am not sure about this. For one thing, don't Christians take their Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity? 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. 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. 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. 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?  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.  I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education system.  ~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 your sins by Jesus and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast to more mainstream Christianity, where many churches believe that there are many paths to God, but theirs is Jesus. They tend to think that good people of many faiths will be with God after death, whether thru Jesus or their own faith. One of the main ideas in Christianity is that good works do not earn you admission to Heaven. It is the Belief that counts, even if that belief in God/Jesus/Holy Ghost happens in the last minutes of a nasty life. So, if you accept Jesus then, and really believe, you are saved. As opposed to Judaism, where faith is not an issue, but observances are important.  Why do you think people pray to Jesus? They pray to Jesus for assistance or comfort. And Catholics also pray to the mother of Jesus (Mary) and a whole host of saints (formerly alive people who have been granted sainthood due to performing miracles). They believe that Jesus or Mary or saints or God can intervene in our affairs. Similar to Hindus doing yagyas and making offerings to get some assistance and to change earthly circumstances. The son of God...I have never thought he was God.  Never.  I refuse.  Read from Sentence 3 through the end.  Pretty much sums it up don't ya think?  Or? What else?  Duality/Reality?  Do we ever defeat the ego?  Whaddya think? Sounds as if Jesus had some good spiritual experiences and was charismatic and had some followers who got some real benefits from his very powerful darshan. People probably misunderstood much of what he talked about. Didn't Jim used to address this kind of stuff? I think Yogananda wrote some
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Hm.when you are not in your believing in spirituality mode, what do you think?  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 wayback71@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: snip 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. àTee Hee. àWhen in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you! Reading Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing. From: Susan wayback71@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative. àI am not sure about this.àFor one thing, don't Christians take their Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?àWhat 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.àAll 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.àIf 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.àIf 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? àMost 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. àI was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education system. à~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 your sins by Jesus and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: snip 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.  Tee Hee.  When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you! Reading Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing. Hello all, When I was just a teenager fresh out of high school, my first venture into spirituality other than Yogananda was the purchase of a five-volume set of books entitled Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East authored by Baird T. Spalding (ISBN 0-87516-084-0, copyright 1924, 1937, 1964). From the foreward by Mr. Spalding: In presenting The Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East I wish to state that I was one of a research party of eleven persons that visited the Far East in 1894. During our stay - three and a half years - we contacted the Great Masters of the Himalayas, who aided us in the translation of the records...They permitted us to enter into their lives intimately, and we were thus able to see the actual working of the great Law as demonstrated by them...Personally, at that time, I thought the world was not ready for this message...This book...gives the first year's experience of the expedition in relation to the Masters...The Masters accept that Buddha represents the Way to Enlightenment, but they clearly set forth that Christ IS Enlightenment, or a state of consciousness for which we are all seeking - the Christ light of every individual; therefore, the light of every child that is born into the world. In addition of many miracles witnessed by the scientists, the Masters were visited by Christ on many occasions and his teachings were explained in light of the Eastern traditions of spiritual knowledge. It is fascinating reading and makes perfect sense. Well, that's my contribution to this discussion. Thanks for listening. From: Susan wayback71@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  I am not sure about this. For one thing, don't Christians take their Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity? 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. 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. 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. 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?  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.  I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education system.  ~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 your sins by Jesus and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast to more mainstream Christianity, where many churches believe that there are many paths to God, but theirs is Jesus. They tend to think that good people of many faiths will be with God after death, whether thru Jesus or their own faith. One of the main ideas in Christianity is that good works do not earn you admission
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
Thank you Susan and Laughinggull. I appreciate it. From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: snip 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.  Tee Hee.  When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you! Reading Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing. Hello all, When I was just a teenager fresh out of high school, my first venture into spirituality other than Yogananda was the purchase of a five-volume set of books entitled Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East authored by Baird T. Spalding (ISBN 0-87516-084-0, copyright 1924, 1937, 1964). From the foreward by Mr. Spalding: In presenting The Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East I wish to state that I was one of a research party of eleven persons that visited the Far East in 1894. During our stay - three and a half years - we contacted the Great Masters of the Himalayas, who aided us in the translation of the records...They permitted us to enter into their lives intimately, and we were thus able to see the actual working of the great Law as demonstrated by them...Personally, at that time, I thought the world was not ready for this message...This book...gives the first year's experience of the expedition in relation to the Masters...The Masters accept that Buddha represents the Way to Enlightenment, but they clearly set forth that Christ IS Enlightenment, or a state of consciousness for which we are all seeking - the Christ light of every individual; therefore, the light of every child that is born into the world. In addition of many miracles witnessed by the scientists, the Masters were visited by Christ on many occasions and his teachings were explained in light of the Eastern traditions of spiritual knowledge. It is fascinating reading and makes perfect sense. Well, that's my contribution to this discussion. Thanks for listening. From: Susan wayback71@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  I am not sure about this. For one thing, don't Christians take their Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity? 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. 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. 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. 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?  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.  I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education system.  ~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 your sins
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] The self is the individuating existence of a nature | God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I can see it can be read this way: 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world: The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. So then I am forced to write: The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears altogether. If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why not then: The self is nature, which is absolute being. Why have two definitions for the same?: The self is absolute being. Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] Well, that seems to me to be the very reason why you thought the sentence is not punctuated clearly, IMHO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] The self is the individuating existence of a nature | God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I can see it can be read this way: 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world: The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. So then I am forced to write: The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears altogether. If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why not then: The self is nature, which is absolute being. Why have two definitions for the same?: The self is absolute being. Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick one. OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
Be yourself. Seems kinda obvious, huh? From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] The self is the individuating existence of a nature | God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I can see it can be read this way: 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world: The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. So then I am forced to write: The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears altogether. If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why not then: The self is nature, which is absolute being. Why have two definitions for the same?: The self is absolute being. Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick one. OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] Well, that seems to me to be the very reason why you thought the sentence is not punctuated clearly, IMHO. I did see it, but obviously I parsed the sentence incorrectly. Part of that, beside a lack of attention is when reading spiritual stuff there is a strong tendency to read between the lines based on one's own experience. One interprets what one reads in terms of that; there is no completely objective reality. For me scientific reality is about as objective as it can get.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
Aspirin is good for headaches. It really does work. But if you like to suffer, there are ineffective things you can take for a headache. Robin likes really convoluted intellectual stuff with strong emotional overtones. I prefer more simplicity. There is what is called 'you', a body, and there is a world outside the body. The body is in the world and is thus a part of the world and some value in that body experiences all of this. From the deepest recess of the mind to the furtherest extent of the world, it is all continuous and connected. If we restrict our attention to the present moment, not thinking of future and past or imagining things we cannot see, there is nothing else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] The self is the individuating existence of a nature | God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I can see it can be read this way: 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world: The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. So then I am forced to write: The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears altogether. If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why not then: The self is nature, which is absolute being. Why have two definitions for the same?: The self is absolute being. Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick one. OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
dear Ann, I've been on forums that had ONLY that kind of discussion! No crop circles, no surf reports, no amazing poetry, no movie TV reviews, no Orion photos, no love, Ravi, no Assumption paintings, no moving music, etc. No nothing but Being and Nothingness 24/7. Ok, exaggerating for effect. I'm just sayin FFL is fun in ways that other forums aren't. Hmmm, that doesn't sound right either but gotta leave for a bit. Put on a black turtleneck sweater, sip some espresso, smoke some Galoise and simply imagine that the Seine is flowing by and Camus and Sartre are at the table with you (-: PS Still working on my naughty name... From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] The self is the individuating existence of a nature | God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I can see it can be read this way: 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world: The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. So then I am forced to write: The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears altogether. If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why not then: The self is nature, which is absolute being. Why have two definitions for the same?: The self is absolute being. Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick one. OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Aspirin is good for headaches. It really does work. But if you like to suffer, there are ineffective things you can take for a headache. Robin likes really convoluted intellectual stuff with strong emotional overtones. I prefer more simplicity. There is what is called 'you', a body, and there is a world outside the body. The body is in the world and is thus a part of the world and some value in that body experiences all of this. From the deepest recess of the mind to the furtherest extent of the world, it is all continuous and connected. If we restrict our attention to the present moment, not thinking of future and past or imagining things we cannot see, there is nothing else. Hm...maybe I'll take that aspirin now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] The self is the individuating existence of a nature | God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I can see it can be read this way: 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world: The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. So then I am forced to write: The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears altogether. If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why not then: The self is nature, which is absolute being. Why have two definitions for the same?: The self is absolute being. Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick one. OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: dear Ann, I've been on forums that had ONLY that kind of discussion! No crop circles, no surf reports, no amazing poetry, no movie TV reviews, no Orion photos, no love, Ravi, no Assumption paintings, no moving music, etc. No nothing but Being and Nothingness 24/7. Ok, exaggerating for effect. I'm just sayin FFL is fun in ways that other forums aren't. Hmmm, that doesn't sound right either but gotta leave for a bit. Put on a black turtleneck sweater, sip some espresso, smoke some Galoise and simply imagine that the Seine is flowing by and Camus and Sartre are at the table with you (-: That is more my style, minus the Galoise. PS Still working on my naughty name... I certainly hope so. From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] The self is the individuating existence of a nature | God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I can see it can be read this way: 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world: The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. So then I am forced to write: The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears altogether. If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why not then: The self is nature, which is absolute being. Why have two definitions for the same?: The self is absolute being. Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick one. OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
...no love, (no) Ravi, Oh - how must have my poor dear old Aunt suffered? How long did she suffer, at the hands of these frigid, frozen, frosty Neo-Advaitins? My heart is ravaged by an unrestrained, unabated, unconditioned fury. How glad must my aunt be, to be finally reunited with her loving nephew !!! On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: dear Ann, I've been on forums that had ONLY that kind of discussion! No crop circles, no surf reports, no amazing poetry, no movie TV reviews, no Orion photos, no love, Ravi, no Assumption paintings, no moving music, etc. No nothing but Being and Nothingness 24/7. Ok, exaggerating for effect. I'm just sayin FFL is fun in ways that other forums aren't. Hmmm, that doesn't sound right either but gotta leave for a bit. Put on a black turtleneck sweater, sip some espresso, smoke some Galoise and simply imagine that the Seine is flowing by and Camus and Sartre are at the table with you (-: PS Still working on my naughty name... From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since' in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...) Let me try again - first the original: 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence: [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase] The self is the individuating existence of a nature | God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I can see it can be read this way: 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world: The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being. But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. So then I am forced to write: The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being. There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears altogether. If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why not then: The self is nature, which is absolute being. Why have two definitions for the same?: The self is absolute being. Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification. We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick one. OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: I thought you had left Catholic philosophy behind Robin. But then you seem to be bent on destroying the oneness of God in your experience. This is needlessly complex, but it is quite intriguing. Hopkins, or a commentator thereupon? Statements such as 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, and freely choose, according to his will' are not logical, whereas if you wrote it this way, 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, according to His (God's) will' would make more sense. Perhaps Judy can explain this to me, for I am sure your commentary would pass me by. Dear Xeno, You should rewrite his poems too. In order to understand what Hopkins is saying here (you were right about the author; that's good), you need to read my favourite passage of all-time. Where in effect (without explicating it) Hopkins is defining the importance of first-person ontology. But in reading over what you have written here, I found [before I give you that quotation again] a remark germane to all of what divides us in our understanding of and belief about metaphysical ultimates: For in fulfilling his own individuality, he is a living temple of God, he is another Christ, who is most himself 'when the member is in all things conformed to Christ. This too best brings out the nature of the man himself, as the lettering on a sail or device upon a flag are best seen when it fills.' For the self, that about the individual 'which is more distinctive than the taste of ale or alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnutleaf or camphor' is not annihilated by Christ's presence, but rather brought to its most perfect stress of pitch, to the actualizing of its fullest human potentiality. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it*. Each mortal thing does one thing and the same: Deals out that being indoors each one dwells; Selves--goes itself; *myself* it speaks and spells, Crying *What I do is me: for that I came*. Do you see, Xeno how antithetical Hopkins's philosophy (and insight) is to the philosophy that is the priori here on FFL? And you, evidently, are *embodying* this anti-Hopkins philosophy. But either Hopkins is right, or Xeno is right. I believe I get more of the instress of reality inside Hopkins than I do inside your words. I say more: the just man justices; Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces; Acts in God's eyes what in God's eye he is-- Christ and: Christ plays in ten thousand places, Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his To the Father through the features of men's faces, And here is what LSD, TM, Maharishi, Unity, the East more or less denied--but this truth drives my life, Xeno, the truth held inside this claim of Hopkins. It is the most beautiful and important truth I know. Much love to you as you read it again: I find myself both as man and as myself something most determined and distinctive, at pitch, more distinctive and higher pitched than anything else I see; I find myself with my pleasures and pains, my powers and my experiences, my deserts and guilt, my shame and sense of beauty, my dangers, hopes, fears, and all my fate, more important to myself than anything I see. And when I ask where does all this throng and stack of being, so rich, so distinctive, so important, come from/ nothing I see can answer me. And this whether I speak of human nature or of my individuality, my selfbeing. For human nature, being more highly pitched, selved, and distinctive than anything in the world, can have been developed, evolved, condensed, from the vastness of the world not anyhow or by the working of common powers but only by one of finer or higher pitch and determination than itself and certainly than any that elsewhere we see, for this power had to force forward the starting or stubborn elements to the one pitch required. And this is much more true when we consider the mind; when I consider my selfbeing, my consciousness and feeling of myself, that taste of myself, of *I* and *me* above and in all things, which is more distinctive than the taste of ale or alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnutleaf or camphor, and is incommunicable by any means to another man (as when I was a child I used to ask myself: What must it be to be someone else?). Nothing else in nature comes near this unspeakable stress of pitch, distinctiveness, and selving, this selfbeing of my own. Nothing explains it or resembles it, except so far as this, that other men themselves have the same feeling. But this only multiplies the phenomena to be explained so far as the cases are like and do resemble. But to me there is no
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: I thought you had left Catholic philosophy behind Robin. But then you seem to be bent on destroying the oneness of God in your experience. This is needlessly complex, but it is quite intriguing. Hopkins, or a commentator thereupon? Statements such as 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, and freely choose, according to his will' are not logical, whereas if you wrote it this way, 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, according to His (God's) will' would make more sense. Perhaps Judy can explain this to me, for I am sure your commentary would pass me by. http://tinyurl.com/8phkwob http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHsDeiV-QAsfeature=related . . . there is a scale or range of pitch which is also infinite and terminates upwards in the directness or uprightness of the 'stem' of the godhead and the procession of the divine persons. God then can shift the self that lies in one to a higher, that is/better, pitch of itself; that is/to a pitch or determination of itself on the side of the good. But here arises a darker difficulty still; for how can we tell that each self has, in particular, any such better self, any such range from bad to good? In the abstract there is such a range of pitch and conceivably a self to be found, actually or possibly, at each pitch in it, but how can *each* self have all these pitches? for this seems contrary to its freedom; the more so as if we look at the exhibition of moral freedom in life, at men's lives and history, we find not only that in the same circumstances and seemingly with the same graces they behave differently, not only they do not range as fast from bad to good or good to bad one as another, but, even what is most intrinsic to a man, the influence of his own past and of the preexisting disposition of will with which he comes to action seems irregular and now he does well, now he sins, bids fair to be a sinner and becomes a saint or bids fair to be a saint and falls away, and indeed goes through vicissitudes of all sorts and changes times without number. This matter is profound; but so far as I see this is the truth. First, though self, as personality, is prior to nature it is not prior to pitch. If there were something prior even to pitch, of which that pitch would be itself the pitch, then we could suppose that that, like everything else, was subject to God's will and could be pitched, could be determined, this way or that. But this is really saying that a thing is and is not itself, is and is not A, is and is not. For self before nature is no thing as yet but only possible; with the accession of a nature it becomes properly a self, for instance a person: only so far as it is prior to nature, that is to say/so far as it is a definite self, the possibility of a definite self (and not merely the possibility of a number or fetch of nature) it is identified with pitch, moral pitch, determination of right and wrong. And so far, it has its possibility, as it will have its existence, from God, but not so that God makes pitch no pitch, determination no determination, and indifference indifference. The indifference, the absence of pitch, is in the nature to be superadded. And when nature is superadded, then it cannot be believed, as the Thomists think, that in every circumstance of free choice the person is of himself indifferent towards the alternatives and that God determines which he shall, though freely, choose. The difficulty does not lie so much in his being determined by God and yet choosing freely, for on one side that may and must happen, but in his being supposed equally disposed or pitched towards both at once. This is impossible and destroys the notion of freedom and of pitch. Nevertheless in every circumstance it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, and freely choose, according to his will; but not without a change or access of circumstance, over and above the bare act of determination on his part. This access is either of grace, which is 'supernature', to nature or of more grace to grace already given, and it takes the form of instressing the affective will, of affecting the will towards the good which he proposes. So far this is a necessary and constrained affection on the creature's part, to which the *arbitrium* of the creature may give its avowal and consent. Ordinarily when grace is given we feel first the necessary or constrained act and after that the free act on own part, of consent or refusal as the case may be. This consent or refusal is given to an act either hereafter or now to be done, but in the nature of things such an act must always
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: I thought you had left Catholic philosophy behind Robin. But then you seem to be bent on destroying the oneness of God in your experience. This is needlessly complex, but it is quite intriguing. Hopkins, or a commentator thereupon? Statements such as 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, and freely choose, according to his will' are not logical, whereas if you wrote it this way, 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, according to His (God's) will' would make more sense. Perhaps Judy can explain this to me, for I am sure your commentary would pass me by. Dear Xeno, You should rewrite his poems too. I am afraid that my rewriting poetry would not be in the best interests of the poem. In order to understand what Hopkins is saying here (you were right about the author; that's good), you need to read my favourite passage of all-time. Where in effect (without explicating it) Hopkins is defining the importance of first-person ontology. But in reading over what you have written here, I found [before I give you that quotation again] a remark germane to all of what divides us in our understanding of and belief about metaphysical ultimates: For in fulfilling his own individuality, he is a living temple of God, he is another Christ, who is most himself 'when the member is in all things conformed to Christ. This too best brings out the nature of the man himself, as the lettering on a sail or device upon a flag are best seen when it fills.' For the self, that about the individual 'which is more distinctive than the taste of ale or alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnutleaf or camphor' is not annihilated by Christ's presence, but rather brought to its most perfect stress of pitch, to the actualizing of its fullest human potentiality. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it*. Each mortal thing does one thing and the same: Deals out that being indoors each one dwells; Selves--goes itself; *myself* it speaks and spells, Crying *What I do is me: for that I came*. Do you see, Xeno how antithetical Hopkins's philosophy (and insight) is to the philosophy that is the priori here on FFL? Of course they appear to be opposed. You have on the one hand a philosophy that seeks to erase the division between the individual and the rest of existence, which if you like, includes the concept of god. The other seeks to raise the individual to the peak of perfection within the rest of existence, while acknowledging that division as real. It is just that experientially that division is conceptual, and that conception can be transcended. Hopkins, as you, does not want to step over that line. That is a no no I suppose for Christians. 'I and my Father are one' would be a special reservation, off limits as it were. And you, evidently, are *embodying* this anti-Hopkins philosophy. I can see how this applies, I am not against Hopkins; it is simply I have no use for it in the sense tha tyou do. It is beautiful the way he expresses himself. I have to incorporate that in the whole. If I am anti-Hopkins, the words are yours. That characterisation never occurred to me. Shakespeare also holds that degree of separation when he is on the edge of dissolving. Referring to his poem (Sonnet 107): 'And thou in this shall find thy monument, when tyrants crests and tombs of brass are spent.' While there were some Christian influences in my life, I always had the feeling everything was connected in some mysterious way. Trying to get that to happen was another matter. If I cross the line, what Hopkins says is not reduced to nothing, it becomes a value in the whole. The divisions others might have tried to impress on my 'personal ontology' did not turn out to be my working model for the universe. I have an individuality; it has not gone away. The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Though I hear the word 'god' frequently, I normally do not use it myself. It is redundant. That does not mean that my individual ontology has any control of the universe, or that I equate the location where experience comes to a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. I see no ambiguity or problematic punctuation in the sentence as written, FWIW. Here's a sentence with the same structure: Because she often works late, her husband, who does the cooking, prepares dishes that she can warm up in the oven when she gets home.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
Well, I guess I will never be an editor. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less ambiguous. Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed by a semicolon. I see no ambiguity or problematic punctuation in the sentence as written, FWIW. Here's a sentence with the same structure: Because she often works late, her husband, who does the cooking, prepares dishes that she can warm up in the oven when she gets home.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: I thought you had left Catholic philosophy behind Robin. But then you seem to be bent on destroying the oneness of God in your experience. This is needlessly complex, but it is quite intriguing. Hopkins, or a commentator thereupon? Statements such as 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, and freely choose, according to his will' are not logical, whereas if you wrote it this way, 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, according to His (God's) will' would make more sense. Perhaps Judy can explain this to me, for I am sure your commentary would pass me by. . . . there is a scale or range of pitch which is also infinite and terminates upwards in the directness or uprightness of the 'stem' of the godhead and the procession of the divine persons. God then can shift the self that lies in one to a higher, that is/better, pitch of itself; that is/to a pitch or determination of itself on the side of the good. But here arises a darker difficulty still; for how can we tell that each self has, in particular, any such better self, any such range from bad to good? In the abstract there is such a range of pitch and conceivably a self to be found, actually or possibly, at each pitch in it, but how can *each* self have all these pitches? for this seems contrary to its freedom; the more so as if we look at the exhibition of moral freedom in life, at men's lives and history, we find not only that in the same circumstances and seemingly with the same graces they behave differently, not only they do not range as fast from bad to good or good to bad one as another, but, even what is most intrinsic to a man, the influence of his own past and of the preexisting disposition of will with which he comes to action seems irregular and now he does well, now he sins, bids fair to be a sinner and becomes a saint or bids fair to be a saint and falls away, and indeed goes through vicissitudes of all sorts and changes times without number. This matter is profound; but so far as I see this is the truth. First, though self, as personality, is prior to nature it is not prior to pitch. If there were something prior even to pitch, of which that pitch would be itself the pitch, then we could suppose that that, like everything else, was subject to God's will and could be pitched, could be determined, this way or that. But this is really saying that a thing is and is not itself, is and is not A, is and is not. For self before nature is no thing as yet but only possible; with the accession of a nature it becomes properly a self, for instance a person: only so far as it is prior to nature, that is to say/so far as it is a definite self, the possibility of a definite self (and not merely the possibility of a number or fetch of nature) it is identified with pitch, moral pitch, determination of right and wrong. And so far, it has its possibility, as it will have its existence, from God, but not so that God makes pitch no pitch, determination no determination, and indifference indifference. The indifference, the absence of pitch, is in the nature to be superadded. And when nature is superadded, then it cannot be believed, as the Thomists think, that in every circumstance of free choice the person is of himself indifferent towards the alternatives and that God determines which he shall, though freely, choose. The difficulty does not lie so much in his being determined by God and yet choosing freely, for on one side that may and must happen, but in his being supposed equally disposed or pitched towards both at once. This is impossible and destroys the notion of freedom and of pitch. Nevertheless in every circumstance it is within God's power to determine the creature to choose, and freely choose, according to his will; but not without a change or access of circumstance, over and above the bare act of determination on his part. This access is either of grace, which is 'supernature', to nature or of more grace to grace already given, and it takes the form of instressing the affective will, of affecting the will towards the good which he proposes. So far this is a necessary and constrained affection on the creature's part, to which the *arbitrium* of the creature may give its avowal and consent. Ordinarily when grace is given we feel first the necessary or constrained act and after that the free act on own part, of consent or refusal as the case may be. This consent or refusal is given to an act either hereafter or now to be done, but in the nature of things such an act must always be future, even if immediately future or of those futures which arise in acts and phrases like 'I must ask you' to do so-and-so, 'I wish to apologize', 'I beg to say', and so on, And ordinarily the motives for refusal are still present
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happiness is seeing God
Very funny. snip Happiness is cleaving to God as the mind's all-fulfilling object. Well, that I understand...but only if I equate God with Nature. I love that I have to look up so many things here. I think I'll see the movie Brideshead Revisited. I love Emma Thompson. From: Robin Carlsen maskedze...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happiness is seeing God --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Let's take a guess: it's that jolly old medieval saint, Aquinas! Congratulations you are our winner! You have correctly identified the author of the piece. Your prize is: 1.one gallon Lourdes Water 2. 1943 Missal 3. stone fragment of Monte Cassino 4. signed copy of Brideshead Revisited 5. Original copy of Anselm's Proof for the existence of God 6. Recording of Italian women saying the Rosary before 1943 7. Secret photograph of The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima October 13, 1917 8. St Therese of Lisieux's Joan of Arc costume 9. The Summa Theologica signed by Thomas 10. King Louis IX's sword taken from him by the Saracens --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If anyone asks me I will name the author and the text. It is not lifted from my SCI notes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Happiness is another name for God. God is happy by nature; he does not attain happiness or receive it from another. But men become happy by receiving a share in God's happiness, something God creates in them. And this created happiness is a life of human activity in which their human powers are ultimately fulfilled: for the goal of anything is fulfilment in activity. True, to exist is already to live, but to exist is not yet to be happy, except in God's case. When we speak of leading a life of action or contemplation or pleasure, we mean by life an exercise of our existent powers in some form of fulfilling activity; and this is also the way in which our ultimate goal is said to be eternal life. Now *this is eternal life: to know you, the only true god*. There are two sorts of activity: one is exercised outside the doer, like cutting down and burning, and realizes and fulfils the thing it is done to rather than the doer; so happiness cannot be that sort of activity. The other sort of activity, like sensing and understanding and willing, is exercised within the doer and fulfils and realizes him; and such activity can be happiness. God's happiness is God: for him his very existence is an activity by which he is fulfilled from within and not from without; but man's ultimate fulfilment comes by cleaving to God. In our present life we cannot do this by a single continuous activity but only by many interrupted acts; God however has promised us perfect happiness in heaven, and in that happy state man's spirit will be joined to God in one unbroken everlasting activity. The more we approach such unbroken activity in this life the more we can call ourselves happy, and so a life of action, occupied by many things, offers less happiness than a life of contemplation, engaged in the one activity of gazing at the truth. And if at times a man is not actually so engaged, nevertheless because he is ever open and ready and turns his very breaks in contemplation, due to sleep or natural business, to its service, his contemplation seems as if it were unbroken. Happiness, because it cleaves to the uncreated good who cannot be seen or touched, is not activity of our senses. But sense-activity, since it is a pre-condition of understanding, is also a pre-condition of whatever partial happiness we can achieve in our present life. In the perfect happiness we hope for in heaven after the resurrection, happiness will redound from our soul into our body and fulfil our bodily senses; so that sense-activity will follow from happiness, even though the activity by which we cleave to God will not require it as a pre-condition. The activity of happiness is an exercise of understanding, not of willing. For willing a goal is not the same as achieving it: the will can desire absent goals just as much as it can enjoy achieved ones. Something else than an act of will is needed to make the goal present. This is obvious in the case of tangible goals�if money could be got by willing, the needy man would straightway have as much as he wanted�and it is also true of spiritual goals. From the start the will wants to achieve it; but to be achieved it must become present to us in an act of understanding, after which the will can rest and rejoice in the goal already achieved. Happiness, then�*joy in truth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happiness is seeing God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Let's take a guess: it's that jolly old medieval saint, Aquinas! Congratulations you are our winner! You have correctly identified the author of the piece. Your prize is: 1.one gallon Lourdes Water 2. 1943 Missal 3. stone fragment of Monte Cassino 4. signed copy of Brideshead Revisited 5. Original copy of Anselm's Proof for the existence of God 6. Recording of Italian women saying the Rosary before 1943 7. Secret photograph of The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima October 13, 1917 8. St Therese of Lisieux's Joan of Arc costume 9. The Summa Theologica signed by Thomas 10. King Louis IX's sword taken from him by the Saracens --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If anyone asks me I will name the author and the text. It is not lifted from my SCI notes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Happiness is another name for God. God is happy by nature; he does not attain happiness or receive it from another. But men become happy by receiving a share in God's happiness, something God creates in them. And this created happiness is a life of human activity in which their human powers are ultimately fulfilled: for the goal of anything is fulfilment in activity. True, to exist is already to live, but to exist is not yet to be happy, except in God's case. When we speak of leading a life of action or contemplation or pleasure, we mean by life an exercise of our existent powers in some form of fulfilling activity; and this is also the way in which our ultimate goal is said to be eternal life. Now *this is eternal life: to know you, the only true god*. There are two sorts of activity: one is exercised outside the doer, like cutting down and burning, and realizes and fulfils the thing it is done to rather than the doer; so happiness cannot be that sort of activity. The other sort of activity, like sensing and understanding and willing, is exercised within the doer and fulfils and realizes him; and such activity can be happiness. God's happiness is God: for him his very existence is an activity by which he is fulfilled from within and not from without; but man's ultimate fulfilment comes by cleaving to God. In our present life we cannot do this by a single continuous activity but only by many interrupted acts; God however has promised us perfect happiness in heaven, and in that happy state man's spirit will be joined to God in one unbroken everlasting activity. The more we approach such unbroken activity in this life the more we can call ourselves happy, and so a life of action, occupied by many things, offers less happiness than a life of contemplation, engaged in the one activity of gazing at the truth. And if at times a man is not actually so engaged, nevertheless because he is ever open and ready and turns his very breaks in contemplation, due to sleep or natural business, to its service, his contemplation seems as if it were unbroken. Happiness, because it cleaves to the uncreated good who cannot be seen or touched, is not activity of our senses. But sense-activity, since it is a pre-condition of understanding, is also a pre-condition of whatever partial happiness we can achieve in our present life. In the perfect happiness we hope for in heaven after the resurrection, happiness will redound from our soul into our body and fulfil our bodily senses; so that sense-activity will follow from happiness, even though the activity by which we cleave to God will not require it as a pre-condition. The activity of happiness is an exercise of understanding, not of willing. For willing a goal is not the same as achieving it: the will can desire absent goals just as much as it can enjoy achieved ones. Something else than an act of will is needed to make the goal present. This is obvious in the case of tangible goals�if money could be got by willing, the needy man would straightway have as much as he wanted�and it is also true of spiritual goals. From the start the will wants to achieve it; but to be achieved it must become present to us in an act of understanding, after which the will can rest and rejoice in the goal already achieved. Happiness, then�*joy in truth*, as Augustine calls it�is essentially an activity of our understanding, with consequent joy of will. Put another way, willing is not the primary thing we will, just as seeing is not the primary thing we see but has its
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happiness is seeing God
I didn't win but I would love a signed copy of Brideshead Revisited. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Let's take a guess: it's that jolly old medieval saint, Aquinas! Congratulations you are our winner! You have correctly identified the author of the piece. Your prize is: 1.one gallon Lourdes Water 2. 1943 Missal 3. stone fragment of Monte Cassino 4. signed copy of Brideshead Revisited 5. Original copy of Anselm's Proof for the existence of God 6. Recording of Italian women saying the Rosary before 1943 7. Secret photograph of The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima October 13, 1917 8. St Therese of Lisieux's Joan of Arc costume 9. The Summa Theologica signed by Thomas 10. King Louis IX's sword taken from him by the Saracens --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If anyone asks me I will name the author and the text. It is not lifted from my SCI notes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Happiness is another name for God. God is happy by nature; he does not attain happiness or receive it from another. But men become happy by receiving a share in God's happiness, something God creates in them. And this created happiness is a life of human activity in which their human powers are ultimately fulfilled: for the goal of anything is fulfilment in activity. True, to exist is already to live, but to exist is not yet to be happy, except in God's case. When we speak of leading a life of action or contemplation or pleasure, we mean by life an exercise of our existent powers in some form of fulfilling activity; and this is also the way in which our ultimate goal is said to be eternal life. Now *this is eternal life: to know you, the only true god*. There are two sorts of activity: one is exercised outside the doer, like cutting down and burning, and realizes and fulfils the thing it is done to rather than the doer; so happiness cannot be that sort of activity. The other sort of activity, like sensing and understanding and willing, is exercised within the doer and fulfils and realizes him; and such activity can be happiness. God's happiness is God: for him his very existence is an activity by which he is fulfilled from within and not from without; but man's ultimate fulfilment comes by cleaving to God. In our present life we cannot do this by a single continuous activity but only by many interrupted acts; God however has promised us perfect happiness in heaven, and in that happy state man's spirit will be joined to God in one unbroken everlasting activity. The more we approach such unbroken activity in this life the more we can call ourselves happy, and so a life of action, occupied by many things, offers less happiness than a life of contemplation, engaged in the one activity of gazing at the truth. And if at times a man is not actually so engaged, nevertheless because he is ever open and ready and turns his very breaks in contemplation, due to sleep or natural business, to its service, his contemplation seems as if it were unbroken. Happiness, because it cleaves to the uncreated good who cannot be seen or touched, is not activity of our senses. But sense-activity, since it is a pre-condition of understanding, is also a pre-condition of whatever partial happiness we can achieve in our present life. In the perfect happiness we hope for in heaven after the resurrection, happiness will redound from our soul into our body and fulfil our bodily senses; so that sense-activity will follow from happiness, even though the activity by which we cleave to God will not require it as a pre-condition. The activity of happiness is an exercise of understanding, not of willing. For willing a goal is not the same as achieving it: the will can desire absent goals just as much as it can enjoy achieved ones. Something else than an act of will is needed to make the goal present. This is obvious in the case of tangible goals�if money could be got by willing, the needy man would straightway have as much as he wanted�and it is also true of spiritual goals. From the start the will wants to achieve it; but to be achieved it must become present to us in an act of understanding, after which the will can rest and rejoice in the goal already achieved. Happiness,
[FairfieldLife] Re: If you were God, who would you rather have a beer with?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: [ Those of you who already are God, please excuse my use of the hypothetical in posing this question. ] Would You rather sit down over a cold brew with a guy or gal who could look at You and Your Creation and laugh at it all, or someone who felt compelled to Take It All Seriously? My kinda God would want to hang with the laughers. It has always seemed absurd to suppose that a god would choose for his companions, during all eternity, the dear souls whose highest and only ambition is to obey. - Robert Green Ingersoll After you wake up from a dream, you laugh, but when you're IN the dream it's a serious matter. So it all depends on your perspective, Life is a waking dream, Charlie Lutes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: If you were God, who would you rather have a beer with?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: [ Those of you who already are God, please excuse my use of the hypothetical in posing this question. ] Would You rather sit down over a cold brew with a guy or gal who could look at You and Your Creation and laugh at it all, or someone who felt compelled to Take It All Seriously? My kinda God would want to hang with the laughers. It has always seemed absurd to suppose that a god would choose for his companions, during all eternity, the dear souls whose highest and only ambition is to obey. - Robert Green Ingersoll If I were god, not only would I own all the beer, all those drinking would be at my disposition regardless of what they think. I would have my beer, and drink it all too, via these surrogates. As for the drinkers, having given them a short life span, I have arranged for replacements from time to time; eternity is for me alone, not thee. I think I would start with the MUM keg party in the ladies dome, all invited.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology
Dear Robin, OK fine, if there was anyone who could have stopped The Mad Yogi Inc it would have had to be either you, Bob or Judy. All of you are strangely silent or conniving, in cahoots with this outrageous, provocative and queasy organization. If at all history has to look back, today would be the day that marked as the beginning of the betrayal. Having said that you know very well I'm the needy, narcissistic lover that loves to entertain the beloved and demands attention from her. So I totally loved the attention. I will periodically attack or provoke you and I expect similar attention from you. You are free to copy and paste that first paragraph of yours, though I would love something fresh even if it's a rearrangement of those words. The part about Osho completely went over from my head, did you miss a link or something? Love - Ravi On Nov 16, 2011, at 10:36 PM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Re: [FairfieldLife] For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology Dear Ravi, You are so different from me, from all the rest of the persons who post here at FFL, that I hesitate to go beyond what I have already said to you in that personal analysis. Because there I simply tracked my experience of you. What makes you (to repeat myself) stand apart not just from everyone here, but every person I have known in my life is this capacity to not be wounded in your self-consciousness, this capacity to always transcend any neurotic potentiality, this capacity to live outside of all conditioning, this capacity to make reality whatever you choose to make it—without ever, it seems, becoming hostage to that reality, or a victim of reality's judgment of you; this capacity to assault creatively what you, in your freedom, perceive to be constricted, hidebound behaviour in others; this capacity to live outside of time and space and human tragedy; this capacity to create the universe you wish to create; this capacity to always be accountable only to your own consciousness and sense of play; your capacity to always be purely spontaneous; your capacity to not be hurt by the reactions of other people; your capacity to strike at the weakness of others where that weakness issues in some negative compensation; your capacity to provoke but to let go in an instant, never making of this a compulsion; your capacity to always stay moving and in flight, never getting stationary or immobilized by your own subjectivity; your capacity to insult with an impersonal purpose; your capacity to create and live totally inside your own context; your capacity to make conscience something which you can take or leave as you see fit; your capacity to blaspheme in the evident holiness of your own outrageousness; your capacity to like what you like without even sensitizing yourself to the likes of others—much less be influenced by these other likes; your capacity to know truth but never to feel constrained to be obedient to truth; your capacity to make of life a perpetual act of provocation and love; your capacity to torment and tease always from a point of view which takes advantage of your momentary egolessness; your capacity to not be a victim of the fact that you did not create yourself; your capacity to seemingly ignore the prospect of death—except of course to celebrate this opportunity to entertain the powers which will conduct you to your next world; your capacity to take all of what I say here lightly; your capacity to read the motives of others; your capacity to enjoy the fluctuations of your moods; your capacity to take what I have just said to you what you will—never being determined by some consideration of your own vanity. Pretty interesting, all this, I would say. Now Ravi, I am going to do something I would never think of doing, given my knowledge of you. But in knowing your contempt for certain ideas that I like, for example, omnisubjectivity, I thought to take advantage of the perfect irony understanding between us, and do a point counterpoint with you. You have included in your post the ideas of Osho. I find him unbearably goofy; and yet I sense in you a strong sensation of recognition that somehow he represents your own truth to you. This is quite incredible to me. Because, knowing what a sharp fellow you are—way more than sharp—I would have thought you would experience something of what I experience whenever I watch Osho speak, or read what he has said. But I have read what you posted of his, and to reciprocate, I am going to send you a letter that Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote when he was just 21 years old while finishing with a double first at Oxford. I suspect, but for very different reasons, you will hate what he writes. But since you have trusted me with what you have committed yourself to as being consonant with your own beliefs about reality, I am going to post
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxfPIe2qqxwfeature=related Ravi, Apologies if I have neglected my duties as your biggest fan; I felt I was staying in touch and expressing my appreciation, for your fully realized showmanship, with my links, which, I agree, can sometimes be far left field, at best; but then anarchy is like that, and one of the many reasons I wait to read and reread every word you post is that I know you are the true anarchist (if not anti-Christ) of conscious entertainment whose only goal to show how naked the pompous ass of the emperor can truly be. As you may know; the music at the following link was written a few blocks from where you're living. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJY8jJkDoMYfeature=related I've always thought of you and Robin as somewhere between born again Narcissus and Goldmund's and Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. http://www.enotes.com/narcissus-goldmund-salem/narcissus-goldmund http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck6vqsOt-Pc Please keep throwing those books, you've been even hotter than usual this week From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:43:21 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology Dear Robin, OK fine, if there was anyone who could have stopped The Mad Yogi Inc it would have had to be either you, Bob or Judy. All of you are strangely silent or conniving, in cahoots with this outrageous, provocative and queasy organization. If at all history has to look back, today would be the day that marked as the beginning of the betrayal. Having said that you know very well I'm the needy, narcissistic lover that loves to entertain the beloved and demands attention from her. So I totally loved the attention. I will periodically attack or provoke you and I expect similar attention from you. You are free to copy and paste that first paragraph of yours, though I would love something fresh even if it's a rearrangement of those words. The part about Osho completely went over from my head, did you miss a link or something? Love - Ravi On Nov 16, 2011, at 10:36 PM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Re: [FairfieldLife] For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology Dear Ravi, You are so different from me, from all the rest of the persons who post here at FFL, that I hesitate to go beyond what I have already said to you in that personal analysis. Because there I simply tracked my experience of you. What makes you (to repeat myself) stand apart not just from everyone here, but every person I have known in my life is this capacity to not be wounded in your self-consciousness, this capacity to always transcend any neurotic potentiality, this capacity to live outside of all conditioning, this capacity to make reality whatever you choose to make it—without ever, it seems, becoming hostage to that reality, or a victim of reality's judgment of you; this capacity to assault creatively what you, in your freedom, perceive to be constricted, hidebound behaviour in others; this capacity to live outside of time and space and human tragedy; this capacity to create the universe you wish to create; this capacity to always be accountable only to your own consciousness and sense of play; your capacity to always be purely spontaneous; your capacity to not be hurt by the reactions of other people; your capacity to strike at the weakness of others where that weakness issues in some negative compensation; your capacity to provoke but to let go in an instant, never making of this a compulsion; your capacity to always stay moving and in flight, never getting stationary or immobilized by your own subjectivity; your capacity to insult with an impersonal purpose; your capacity to create and live totally inside your own context; your capacity to make conscience something which you can take or leave as you see fit; your capacity to blaspheme in the evident holiness of your own outrageousness; your capacity to like what you like without even sensitizing yourself to the likes of others—much less be influenced by these other likes; your capacity to know truth but never to feel constrained to be obedient to truth; your capacity to make of life a perpetual act of provocation and love; your capacity to torment and tease always from a point of view which takes advantage of your momentary egolessness; your capacity to not be a victim of the fact that you did not create yourself; your capacity to seemingly ignore the prospect of death—except of course to celebrate this opportunity to entertain the powers which will conduct you to your next world; your capacity to take all of what I say here lightly; your capacity to read the motives of others; your capacity to enjoy the fluctuations of your moods; your capacity to take what I
[FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology
Re: [FairfieldLife] For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology Dear Ravi, You are so different from me, from all the rest of the persons who post here at FFL, that I hesitate to go beyond what I have already said to you in that personal analysis. Because there I simply tracked my experience of you. What makes you (to repeat myself) stand apart not just from everyone here, but every person I have known in my life is this capacity to not be wounded in your self-consciousness, this capacity to always transcend any neurotic potentiality, this capacity to live outside of all conditioning, this capacity to make reality whatever you choose to make itwithout ever, it seems, becoming hostage to that reality, or a victim of reality's judgment of you; this capacity to assault creatively what you, in your freedom, perceive to be constricted, hidebound behaviour in others; this capacity to live outside of time and space and human tragedy; this capacity to create the universe you wish to create; this capacity to always be accountable only to your own consciousness and sense of play; your capacity to always be purely spontaneous; your capacity to not be hurt by the reactions of other people; your capacity to strike at the weakness of others where that weakness issues in some negative compensation; your capacity to provoke but to let go in an instant, never making of this a compulsion; your capacity to always stay moving and in flight, never getting stationary or immobilized by your own subjectivity; your capacity to insult with an impersonal purpose; your capacity to create and live totally inside your own context; your capacity to make conscience something which you can take or leave as you see fit; your capacity to blaspheme in the evident holiness of your own outrageousness; your capacity to like what you like without even sensitizing yourself to the likes of othersmuch less be influenced by these other likes; your capacity to know truth but never to feel constrained to be obedient to truth; your capacity to make of life a perpetual act of provocation and love; your capacity to torment and tease always from a point of view which takes advantage of your momentary egolessness; your capacity to not be a victim of the fact that you did not create yourself; your capacity to seemingly ignore the prospect of deathexcept of course to celebrate this opportunity to entertain the powers which will conduct you to your next world; your capacity to take all of what I say here lightly; your capacity to read the motives of others; your capacity to enjoy the fluctuations of your moods; your capacity to take what I have just said to you what you willnever being determined by some consideration of your own vanity. Pretty interesting, all this, I would say. Now Ravi, I am going to do something I would never think of doing, given my knowledge of you. But in knowing your contempt for certain ideas that I like, for example, omnisubjectivity, I thought to take advantage of the perfect irony understanding between us, and do a point counterpoint with you. You have included in your post the ideas of Osho. I find him unbearably goofy; and yet I sense in you a strong sensation of recognition that somehow he represents your own truth to you. This is quite incredible to me. Because, knowing what a sharp fellow you areway more than sharpI would have thought you would experience something of what I experience whenever I watch Osho speak, or read what he has said. But I have read what you posted of his, and to reciprocate, I am going to send you a letter that Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote when he was just 21 years old while finishing with a double first at Oxford. I suspect, but for very different reasons, you will hate what he writes. But since you have trusted me with what you have committed yourself to as being consonant with your own beliefs about reality, I am going to post this letter from Hopkins, a letter which, when I first read it, produced the awareness of a kind of perfect truthin this sense: Hopkins was making contact with [this was before his conversion to Catholicism] an extraordinary reality, the kind of contact out of which he would compose his beautiful poems in honour of his Master. You will laugh and mock and dismiss almost everything he says; but I have already done the same with Osho. So, no matter. This letter represents faithfully the way I go about determining the value and significance of something; which is to say that Hopkins is able to use his first person ontology in order to apprehend something very realbut something which would escape the notice and experience of almost everyone else in the world. Here is that letteror rather the main substance of the letter, a letter I deem about as unanswerable as any letter I have readalthough as I say that, you, Ravi, will have no compunction about condemning it as pure bunk
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj9t94fuUTg From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:36:55 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology Re: [FairfieldLife] For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology Dear Ravi, You are so different from me, from all the rest of the persons who post here at FFL, that I hesitate to go beyond what I have already said to you in that personal analysis. Because there I simply tracked my experience of you. What makes you (to repeat myself) stand apart not just from everyone here, but every person I have known in my life is this capacity to not be wounded in your self-consciousness, this capacity to always transcend any neurotic potentiality, this capacity to live outside of all conditioning, this capacity to make reality whatever you choose to make it—without ever, it seems, becoming hostage to that reality, or a victim of reality's judgment of you; this capacity to assault creatively what you, in your freedom, perceive to be constricted, hidebound behaviour in others; this capacity to live outside of time and space and human tragedy; this capacity to create the universe you wish to create; this capacity to always be accountable only to your own consciousness and sense of play; your capacity to always be purely spontaneous; your capacity to not be hurt by the reactions of other people; your capacity to strike at the weakness of others where that weakness issues in some negative compensation; your capacity to provoke but to let go in an instant, never making of this a compulsion; your capacity to always stay moving and in flight, never getting stationary or immobilized by your own subjectivity; your capacity to insult with an impersonal purpose; your capacity to create and live totally inside your own context; your capacity to make conscience something which you can take or leave as you see fit; your capacity to blaspheme in the evident holiness of your own outrageousness; your capacity to like what you like without even sensitizing yourself to the likes of others—much less be influenced by these other likes; your capacity to know truth but never to feel constrained to be obedient to truth; your capacity to make of life a perpetual act of provocation and love; your capacity to torment and tease always from a point of view which takes advantage of your momentary egolessness; your capacity to not be a victim of the fact that you did not create yourself; your capacity to seemingly ignore the prospect of death—except of course to celebrate this opportunity to entertain the powers which will conduct you to your next world; your capacity to take all of what I say here lightly; your capacity to read the motives of others; your capacity to enjoy the fluctuations of your moods; your capacity to take what I have just said to you what you will—never being determined by some consideration of your own vanity. Pretty interesting, all this, I would say. Now Ravi, I am going to do something I would never think of doing, given my knowledge of you. But in knowing your contempt for certain ideas that I like, for example, omnisubjectivity, I thought to take advantage of the perfect irony understanding between us, and do a point counterpoint with you. You have included in your post the ideas of Osho. I find him unbearably goofy; and yet I sense in you a strong sensation of recognition that somehow he represents your own truth to you. This is quite incredible to me. Because, knowing what a sharp fellow you are—way more than sharp—I would have thought you would experience something of what I experience whenever I watch Osho speak, or read what he has said. But I have read what you posted of his, and to reciprocate, I am going to send you a letter that Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote when he was just 21 years old while finishing with a double first at Oxford. I suspect, but for very different reasons, you will hate what he writes. But since you have trusted me with what you have committed yourself to as being consonant with your own beliefs about reality, I am going to post this letter from Hopkins, a letter which, when I first read it, produced the awareness of a kind of perfect truth—in this sense: Hopkins was making contact with [this was before his conversion to Catholicism] an extraordinary reality, the kind of contact out of which he would compose his beautiful poems in honour of his Master. You will laugh and mock and dismiss almost everything he says; but I have already done the same with Osho. So, no matter. This letter represents faithfully the way I go about determining the value and significance of something; which is to say that Hopkins is able to use his first person ontology in order to apprehend something very real—but something which
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner. Watch 'em dance, folks. authfriend: Well, I'll chime in here and back up BillyG and Ravi, because the do.rk can't accuse me of finding his behavior inappropriate on account of my politics; I'm at least as liberal as he is. It's always wrong to be prejudiced against certain groups of people, like Jews, Christians, Texans, and the Mormons. Where I come from, silence usually indicates agreement. So, it looks like to me that there's only one or two informants on FFL willing to stand up for what's right. Subject: Fringe Christian Right endorses Texas Gov Rick Perry for president Author: John Manning Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon, alt.religion, soc.culture.jewish, alt.atheism, alt.bible.prophecy Date: July 5, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3c4ubh4 Nobody minds the occasional cut-and-paste if it's well chosen and the poster is willing to discuss it. But the indiscriminate dumping that the do.rk has been doing here for months, without any commentary of his own, his only response to disagreement from others being what he perceives to be withering insults like the above, are an abuse of the forum. Well, let's see, Judy, I've been saying this for what, a decade? You supported this character for over seven years on Usenet! And, you've lobbed your share of hate mail at the two or three conservatives on this forum! And it makes liberals look bad just on general principles; people are more likely to resist liberal ideas when they're relentlessly shoved in their faces with no discussion possible. One of his arrogant little tricks is to pick out what he thinks are important fragments of the articles he posts and put them at the top so we'll be sure not to miss them. That's annoying and insulting. We don't need him to instruct us in what's significant about an article. We'll decide for ourselves, thank you very much, if we want to read the article at all. And if we aren't going to read the whole thing, we're not going to accept his choice of callouts as a summary. His snotty comment above is reminiscent of Barry's oft-repeated self-serving trope that the only reason people criticize his behavior is because they don't agreee with his criticisms of TM. That's utter hogwash, but apparently the do.rk thinks it's a stinging rebuke worthy of emulation. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage. Except with that Willytex that lives down in Texas!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
Oh Ravi, let's not name call. Acid.Reflux is just a lovable retired postal worker who's pension goes a little further in Brazil. I look on his rants as a form of primal scream therapy, just lettin' it all hang out for the world to see.However, he does seem to be emotionally invested in his political point of view and he's in for a big let down next year. From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 1:35:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote: I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote: I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@ wrote: I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner. Watch 'em dance, folks. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@ wrote: I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner. Watch 'em dance, folks. Well, I'll chime in here and back up BillyG and Ravi, because the do.rk can't accuse me of finding his behavior inappropriate on account of my politics; I'm at least as liberal as he is. Nobody minds the occasional cut-and-paste if it's well chosen and the poster is willing to discuss it. But the indiscriminate dumping that the do.rk has been doing here for months, without any commentary of his own, his only response to disagreement from others being what he perceives to be withering insults like the above, are an abuse of the forum. And it makes liberals look bad just on general principles; people are more likely to resist liberal ideas when they're relentlessly shoved in their faces with no discussion possible. One of his arrogant little tricks is to pick out what he thinks are important fragments of the articles he posts and put them at the top so we'll be sure not to miss them. That's annoying and insulting. We don't need him to instruct us in what's significant about an article. We'll decide for ourselves, thank you very much, if we want to read the article at all. And if we aren't going to read the whole thing, we're not going to accept his choice of callouts as a summary. His snotty comment above is reminiscent of Barry's oft-repeated self-serving trope that the only reason people criticize his behavior is because they don't agreee with his criticisms of TM. That's utter hogwash, but apparently the do.rk thinks it's a stinging rebuke worthy of emulation. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
do.rflex: Why does God hate Texas? So, it seems that you hate a lot of different groups of people, for no apparent reason. Prejudice against certain group is always wrong, John. You've been taken to task for this on several occasions. You seem to be trying to outdo yourself. Don't you just hate those Mormons? The outright prejudice of some of you TM Teachers is just astounding! What a hateful bunch of spiritual impostors. Even Sal would probably agree with this assessment! This must be the bash-a-group week on FFL. Go figure. 20062008 American Community Survey, the racial and ethnic composition of Texas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: It is prophesied that a leader shall come out of the desert where the fire and heat shall temper his power! Can I get an Amen on that! Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love. ~~ Butch Hancock From: do.rflex do.rflex@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 1:07:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas? Â God's Answer to Rick Perry's Prayers for Rain: Go to Hell By Blue Texan - Friday July 1, 2011 -- On April 21, The Secessionist, who last year sued the EPA so Texas could dump even more carbon into the atmosphere (which totally doesn't cause global warming), used his elected office to ask thepeople of his state to pray that God might end our worst drought in over 100 years. This is what the drought conditions were that week. See Graph: http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2011/07/Screen-shot-2011-07-01-at-9.08.58-AM-300x176.png And this is what they are this week: See 2nd Graph: http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/DM_state.htm?TX,S Why does God hate Texas? http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/01/gods-answer-to-rick-perrys-prayers-for-rain-go-to-hell/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@... wrote: do.rflex: Why does God hate Texas? So, it seems that you hate a lot of different groups of people, for no apparent reason. Prejudice against certain group is always wrong, John. You've been taken to task for this on several occasions. You seem to be trying to outdo yourself. Don't you just hate those Mormons? The outright prejudice of some of you TM Teachers is just astounding! What a hateful bunch of spiritual impostors. Even Sal would probably agree with this assessment! This must be the bash-a-group week on FFL. Go figure. 20062008 American Community Survey, the racial and ethnic composition of Texas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: It is prophesied that a leader shall come out of the desert where the fire and heat shall temper his power! Can I get an Amen on that! Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love. ~~ Butch Hancock From: do.rflex do.rflex@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 1:07:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas? Â God's Answer to Rick Perry's Prayers for Rain: Go to Hell By Blue Texan - Friday July 1, 2011 -- On April 21, The Secessionist, who last year sued the EPA so Texas could dump even more carbon into the atmosphere (which totally doesn't cause global warming), used his elected office to ask thepeople of his state to pray that God might end our worst drought in over 100 years. This is what the drought conditions were that week. See Graph: http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2011/07/Screen-shot-2011-07-01-at-9.08.58-AM-300x176.png And this is what they are this week: See 2nd Graph: http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/DM_state.htm?TX,S Why does God hate Texas? http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/01/gods-answer-to-rick-perrys-prayers-for-rain-go-to-hell/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@ wrote: do.rflex: Why does God hate Texas? So, it seems that you hate a lot of different groups of people, for no apparent reason. Prejudice against certain group is always wrong, John. You've been taken to task for this on several occasions. You seem to be trying to outdo yourself. Don't you just hate those Mormons? The outright prejudice of some of you TM Teachers is just astounding! What a hateful bunch of spiritual impostors. Even Sal would probably agree with this assessment! This must be the bash-a-group week on FFL. Go figure. 20062008 American Community Survey, the racial and ethnic composition of Texas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Projection is a fascinating response to having one's particular nerves hit on target. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? The Guru below appears to be more liberal than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali. ... However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form of Godhead Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no evidence that one or the other of these gods is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. ... The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it. ... Either there is a Supreme Personality of the Godhead or there is not. But should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male gods: Krishna, YHVH, Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than Soma. Rick Archer even interviewed Igal Harmelin, why not another nobody ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare Krishnas are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely make you Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with links from Google images. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru. ... The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism. ... Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's ... And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same old critter but differing stripes). ... OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that Krishna is Bhagavan? ... In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more. ... Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute. Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute above the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not more Absolute than dog crap. Dog = God backwards, same stuff. ... Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everything is Absolute with form, if it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN. ... Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's Personal Form (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you ... See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God, replacing that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form. ... Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal form. Even Hitler. So go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is what he said: Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with you a little piece
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
Is your real name Matlock? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru. ... The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism. ... Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's ... And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same old critter but differing stripes). ... OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that Krishna is Bhagavan? ... In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more. ... Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute. Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute above the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not more Absolute than dog crap. Dog = God backwards, same stuff. ... Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everything is Absolute with form, if it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN. ... Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's Personal Form (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you ... See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God, replacing that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form. ... Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal form. Even Hitler. So go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is what he said: Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with you a little piece of it. There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
Your obvious anger and open hostility toward Bhaktis tell much more than anything else about your point of view here, Yifu. It isn't only the Hare Krishnas [whom you apparently despise] that look to 'enlightenment' in terms of a personal relationship with God. Guru Dev's discourses are filled with recommendations to follow Bhagwan and to worship Paramatma, all according to the Veda Shastras. The following are only two of the dozens of examples he offers: --- Attainment of Bhagwan's World [from Guru Dev]--- With the support of nishkama (disinterested) karma yoga every human being can come to the other side of the ocean of being nishkama karma does not mean to do action without desire, because without desire then nobody can have the pravritti (tendency, inclination or perseverance) of mind [to perform action]. There are two causes of pravritti (tendency for activity), one is the knowledge of ishta sadhana that is information that by doing an action we shall gain fulfilment; and secondly the knowledge of krita sadhyata, knowledge that this work is feasible and possible for us to accomplish. Only by knowing these two pieces of information can there be a spur for any man to perform action. If there is any uncertainty about either of the two aspects then the spur to action will not occur. Therefore preceding a spur to action there must be the desire. Consequently the meaning of nishkama karma appears to be exactly this, that the karma suitable to be done is that which is fitting to offer to Bhagwan. nishkama karma is action done on Bhagwan's account. That karma that is to be offered to Bhagwan, and is not on account of being attached. Your right is only in the action of karma; never desire the effects. Because the soul's life has been suffering poverty from many lifetimes; it has no help with this call for assistance, not knowing what to ask for. When any demand is made then the demand is based on one's own merit. If the soul will wish for the effects of its karmas, then by one's merit there will be little effect desired, but if one surrenders to Bhagwan then Bhagwan who is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, from one's own merit offered to him on high he will give a high gift. Intelligently, delivering to Bhagavat (God), doing action, man gains Bhagwan's world. According to devotion he receives salvation, freedom and deliverance and is always released from being bound to birth and death. Performing karma one gets freed from bondage of life and death, this is the means to acquire moksha (final liberation, beatitude, redemption, absolution, quietus, salvation, freedom, death). From Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati's 108 Discourses [Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 8 of 108] http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/UA_Hindi.htm#kaNa_8 --The power of the grace of Bhagwan is not an arrangement to commit paapa (sin). In truth with the endless feeling from singing bhajan (hymns) to Bhagwan no forbidden behaviour can be practised. Then there is infinite wealth, for without Bhagwan there is nothing. When this kind of condition of devotion will come, then only that which pleases Bhagwan will be done. In the name of Bhagwan the strength of sin fades, so much so that wicked wrongdoings cannot be done. Valmiki is an example of maharishis (sages) who were very evil and wicked before but who let go of their own wickedness after being fully attentive to worshipping Bhagwan, from when they were made good. However sinful one is before, yet if he applies himself to worshipping Bhagwan, then sadagati (salvation, good conduct) will be certain. [Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 15 of 108] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru. ... The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism. ... Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's ... And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
Ravi, I am indeed blessed to be targeted by you, and am now in a select group. Keep up the good work...I have seen you evolve quite a bit since your first posts speaking in the 3-rd person and the like. You seem to be getting smoother... and more settled down, as to your energy field; although some work remains to be done. http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/redtail-hawks.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare Krishnas are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely make you Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with links from Google images. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru. ... The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism. ... Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's ... And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same old critter but differing stripes). ... OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that Krishna is Bhagavan? ... In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more. ... Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute. Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute above the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not more Absolute than dog crap. Dog = God backwards, same stuff. ... Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everything is Absolute with form, if it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN. ... Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's Personal Form (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you ... See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God, replacing that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form. ... Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal form. Even Hitler. So go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is what he said: Is the Absolute dual, or is the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE Yifu, this is the category you fall into by diminishing the adherents of Bhagawan. (yea, I know I've posted this before, but it is such a classic) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Ravi, I am indeed blessed to be targeted by you, and am now in a select group. Keep up the good work...I have seen you evolve quite a bit since your first posts speaking in the 3-rd person and the like. You seem to be getting smoother... and more settled down, as to your energy field; although some work remains to be done. http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/redtail-hawks.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare Krishnas are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely make you Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with links from Google images. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru. ... The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism. ... Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's ... And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same old critter but differing stripes). ... OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that Krishna is Bhagavan? ... In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more. ... Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute. Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute above the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not more Absolute than dog crap. Dog = God backwards, same stuff. ... Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everything is Absolute with form, if it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN. ... Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's Personal Form (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you ... See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God, replacing that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form. ... Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal form. Even Hitler. So go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? You're not paying
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of these gods; whomever She/He may be. http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote: Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick Archer - Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little talk of God among them. But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said, well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the allure that I expected it to have. I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to it. I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week, I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on. Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway, it's only half the package and there's more to be known. Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home' that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans self-control and enlightenment. And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools, and the many variations among these schools. I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I questioned. Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with you a little piece of it. Rick: Please. Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan. Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is... the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything. And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form. Rick: The Personal aspect of God. Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God just like the sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's all-pervading, it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously existing with the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists, but God is infinite. When we say that form limits God, to say that God has no form is also a limit of God. So the Bhakti scriptures teach that the form of the Lord, or Bhagawan is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss. It's not material.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nowhere in the interview was that claimed. There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi? Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of these gods; whomever She/He may be. http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick Archer - Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little talk of God among them. But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said, well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the allure that I expected it to have. I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to it. I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week, I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on. Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway, it's only half the package and there's more to be known. Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home' that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans self-control and enlightenment. And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools, and the many variations among these schools. I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I questioned. Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with you a little piece of it. Rick: Please. Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan. Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is... the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything. And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form. Rick: The Personal aspect of God. Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God just like the sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's all-pervading, it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously existing with the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? The Guru below appears to be more liberal than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali. ... However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form of Godhead Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no evidence that one or the other of these gods is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. ... The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it. ... Either there is a Supreme Personality of the Godhead or there is not. But should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male gods: Krishna, YHVH, Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than Soma. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nowhere in the interview was that claimed. There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi? Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of these gods; whomever She/He may be. http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick Archer - Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little talk of God among them. But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said, well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the allure that I expected it to have. I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to it. I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week, I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on. Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway, it's only half the package and there's more to be known. Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home' that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans self-control and enlightenment. And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools, and the many variations among these schools. I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I questioned. Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I found
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
Radhanath Swami holds a position on the ISKCON GBC the governing board of the Hari K's. While what he opines is somewhat less doctrinaire than other members, in truth he can still only spout ISKCON`s brand of Gaudiya theology. His responses are comparable to someone at a high level in the TMO in other words corporate-speak. This is one reason he iterates claims from the Gaudiya interpretation of Shrimad Bhagavatam, since this is the only real veda for their movement. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of these gods; whomever She/He may be. http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is what he said: Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with you a little piece of it. There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan. Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is... the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything. And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form. - The Guru below appears to be more liberal than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali. ... However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form of Godhead Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no evidence that one or the other of these gods is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. ... The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it. ... Either there is a Supreme Personality of the Godhead or there is not. But should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male gods: Krishna, YHVH, Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than Soma. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nowhere in the interview was that claimed. There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi? Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of these gods; whomever She/He may be. http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick Archer - Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little talk of God among them. But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said, well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the allure that I expected it to have. I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to it. I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute
Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru. ... The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism. ... Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's ... And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same old critter but differing stripes). ... OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that Krishna is Bhagavan? ... In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more. ... Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute. Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute above the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not more Absolute than dog crap. Dog = God backwards, same stuff. ... Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everything is Absolute with form, if it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN. ... Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's Personal Form (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you ... See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God, replacing that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form. ... Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal form. Even Hitler. So go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is what he said: Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with you a little piece of it. There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan. Brahman is the all-pervading formless,
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Grace of God
The Unified Field. Yep, this is interesting. Looks like Maharishi was an old Baptist. Different from modern Southern Baptist doctrine this is what the Primitive Baptists think.1964, that's fabulous. That 'Free Grace', it's there. Everyone is saved already, it is only a matter of knowing that. It's like SCI provides, come to meditation and you'd know. There's an elder at a Primitive Baptist church over by the Des Moines River that preaches just like Maharishi is here in this quote. It's his experience too. He's very Christian in denomination but the guy did also learned TM very early on, years ago. Like me he was a Quaker before he learned TM meditation at a time long ago. He's an Iowa backwoods preacher out there in a church. Open hearted, he's an old soul. In Free Grace Jai Guru Dev, -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: The Grace of God. image.jpeg The Grace of God 29 December 1964, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi speaking to a course at Bad Mergentheim, Germany Question: How do we make the grace of God come to us? Maharishi: Grace of God is all-pervading. It's always present. It's not that it comes; it is that we begin to make use of it. . . . There is nothing new that is to come; it has already come. It has not started with us as long as we have not started with it. The grace of God, the blessing of God, help from God, doesn't come from anywhere. It is already there. Just like the air, it's already there. Now it is up to us to breathe it or not to breathe it. If we don't breathe, we begin to suffer. If we breathe, we begin to be normal. Like the air, the grace of God is available to us. It's permeating every fiber of our being and the being of the entire universe. . . . Only, that which is the all-pervading grace of God is never isolated as an individual entity. It is just there. That which is to be all-pervading is not isolated, not bound, and that which is not bound is finer than the finest existence in creation. When we take our attention to that Being, finer than the finest, then we establish ourselves on the level of God's grace. Immediately we just enjoy. If we don't take ourselves to the level of God's grace, to that level of the finer than the finest, then remaining in the gross we don't have it. That is the story of the grace of God. He is said to be all-merciful . . . all-mercifully He has spread His grace much before we could want it. Much before the need could arise, it is there available for us. Through diving during meditation, we bring our attention, our conscious mind, to that level of grace, and we get filled with it completely. . . . We associate ourselves fully with that grace and then enjoy. That is why this is the merciful nature of the Almighty. Very compassionately, very lovingly, He has spread His grace for us. Any time we can take our attention to that level, and we begin to own it. It's a matter of own- ing the grace of God. From His side He is available. From our side, as long as we hesitate to accept it, we hesitate to accept it. We get ourselves to that level, and it's already there. The Grace of God is like a full lake, a big lake full of water. Now, the water is there. Any farmer can take the water to his field. If the pipeline is not connected up to the level of water, the water remains. Water is just full, ready to flow. But it will not flow of its own accord. If the connection is made, it will naturally flow. If the connection is not made, it won't flow . . . and any man is free to make the connection from his field to the level of water. But if one doesn't make the connection, the water remains full. Just like the fullness of water in a lake or ocean, the grace of God is full. Those who make a connection, who draw the pipeline through Transcendental Meditation, to them it flows. And if we don't, it remains full. Of itself it cannot flow. How many of you are feeling that life is becoming better and more graceful ever since you started meditation? And one thing more let me ask. How many of you find that it's very easy to maintain? Now, this is the merciful nature of God. He has created us so that we don't have to do much . . . very easily we enjoy His grace. Out of our experience we see that it is easy to make life bertter; it is easy to put an end to suffering and sorrows that used to cling to our mind and body before; and it is easy to be freer, better in life, by devoting a few minutes to draw the pipeline from the gross to the transcendent. Just during meditation, we take our attention from the gross to the transcendent - just drawing pipeline from the outer gross through the subtle to the transcendental state of Being, which is the hidden level of the grace of God Grace of the Almighty. In order to enjoy the grace of God we should experience it and
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Grace of God
Yep --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: The Grace of God. image.jpeg The Grace of God 29 December 1964, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi speaking to a course at Bad Mergentheim, Germany Question: How do we make the grace of God come to us? Maharishi: Grace of God is all-pervading. It's always present. It's not that it comes; it is that we begin to make use of it. . . . There is nothing new that is to come; it has already come. It has not started with us as long as we have not started with it. The grace of God, the blessing of God, help from God, doesn't come from anywhere. It is already there. Just like the air, it's already there. Now it is up to us to breathe it or not to breathe it. If we don't breathe, we begin to suffer. If we breathe, we begin to be normal. Like the air, the grace of God is available to us. It's permeating every fiber of our being and the being of the entire universe. . . . Only, that which is the all-pervading grace of God is never isolated as an individual entity. It is just there. That which is to be all-pervading is not isolated, not bound, and that which is not bound is finer than the finest existence in creation. When we take our attention to that Being, finer than the finest, then we establish ourselves on the level of God's grace. Immediately we just enjoy. If we don't take ourselves to the level of God's grace, to that level of the finer than the finest, then remaining in the gross we don't have it. That is the story of the grace of God. He is said to be all-merciful . . . all-mercifully He has spread His grace much before we could want it. Much before the need could arise, it is there available for us. Through diving during meditation, we bring our attention, our conscious mind, to that level of grace, and we get filled with it completely. . . . We associate ourselves fully with that grace and then enjoy. That is why this is the merciful nature of the Almighty. Very compassionately, very lovingly, He has spread His grace for us. Any time we can take our attention to that level, and we begin to own it. It's a matter of own- ing the grace of God. From His side He is available. From our side, as long as we hesitate to accept it, we hesitate to accept it. We get ourselves to that level, and it's already there. The Grace of God is like a full lake, a big lake full of water. Now, the water is there. Any farmer can take the water to his field. If the pipeline is not connected up to the level of water, the water remains. Water is just full, ready to flow. But it will not flow of its own accord. If the connection is made, it will naturally flow. If the connection is not made, it won't flow . . . and any man is free to make the connection from his field to the level of water. But if one doesn't make the connection, the water remains full. Just like the fullness of water in a lake or ocean, the grace of God is full. Those who make a connection, who draw the pipeline through Transcendental Meditation, to them it flows. And if we don't, it remains full. Of itself it cannot flow. How many of you are feeling that life is becoming better and more graceful ever since you started meditation? And one thing more let me ask. How many of you find that it's very easy to maintain? Now, this is the merciful nature of God. He has created us so that we don't have to do much . . . very easily we enjoy His grace. Out of our experience we see that it is easy to make life bertter; it is easy to put an end to suffering and sorrows that used to cling to our mind and body before; and it is easy to be freer, better in life, by devoting a few minutes to draw the pipeline from the gross to the transcendent. Just during meditation, we take our attention from the gross to the transcendent - just drawing pipeline from the outer gross through the subtle to the transcendental state of Being, which is the hidden level of the grace of God Grace of the Almighty. In order to enjoy the grace of God we should experience it and understand it, have the knowledge of it and have the experience of it. We should have experience at every level. God is omnipresent. God is all that there is. Therefore no level of experience is exclusive of Him, and therefore at every level of experience we should be able to experience Him, and simultaneously at every level of understanding we should be able to understand Him . . . we should know Him. . . . We start experiencing Him from today or from tomorrow. Better to understand God and enjoy His grace and experience Him at every level of experience and understand Him at every level of understanding. It is necessary to understand the different levels of life. Having known the different levels of life, having understood the different levels of creation, we are able to see what creates and pervades all
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the intellect mistaking? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share? * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive here is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so that I can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has accomplished that most beautifully.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the intellect mistaking? * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires outside our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore actually outside of our own immediate power to fulfill. By mistakenly believing in the power of spacetime we actually disempower ourself -- often with acute suffering, for this is Nature's way of telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to be the truth. Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through this predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a heartfelt surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves about what our deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need is for some thing like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment, contentment, ecstasy, creatorship, prosperity, Life, Love, Wholeness, God, Heaven, coming Home -- all different angles of the same thing -- and that this burning need really, really matters Here and Now, and that this burning need is obviously *never* going to be fulfilled sometime in the future, because the future is an illusory carrot on a stick; that permanent peace or contentment or fulfillment or world-perfection or God we so ardently desire, by definition must lie in unconditional Permanence, not in the ever-changing and conditional waves of spacetime. So if our fulfillment is to be permanent, it must be outside of spacetime; hence our fulfillment must somehow already be present Here and Now. So we actually surrender our belief in the resistance of spacetime, and we surrender or rise up into the ever-present fulfillment of our deepest need, Here and Now, on the permanent feeling-level. This is where the discriminative intellect is no longer mistaken, for it is surrendered into intuitively appreciating the Great Mystery of Us, the heartfelt perfection of God's Will in this moment, Here and Now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution within. This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the intellect mistaking? * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires outside our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore actually outside of our own immediate power to fulfill. By mistakenly believing in the power of spacetime we actually disempower ourself -- often with acute suffering, for this is Nature's way of telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to be the truth. Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through this predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a heartfelt surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves about what our deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need is for some thing like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment, contentment, ecstasy, creatorship, prosperity, Life, Love, Wholeness, God, Heaven, coming Home -- all different angles of the same thing -- and that this burning need really, really matters Here and Now, and that this burning need is obviously *never* going to be fulfilled sometime in the future, because the future is an illusory carrot on a stick; that permanent peace or contentment or fulfillment or world-perfection or God we so ardently desire, by definition must lie in unconditional Permanence, not in the ever-changing and conditional waves of spacetime. So if our fulfillment is to be permanent, it must be outside of spacetime; hence our fulfillment must somehow already be present Here and Now. So we actually surrender our belief in the resistance of spacetime, and we surrender or rise up into the ever-present fulfillment of our deepest need, Here and Now, on the permanent feeling-level. This is where the discriminative intellect is no longer mistaken, for it is surrendered into intuitively appreciating the Great Mystery of Us, the heartfelt perfection of God's Will in this moment, Here and Now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution within. Couldn't it be, instead of an 'either or' and 'as well as'? As you paint it now, it sounds as it is a contradiction, turning outside to improve any given situation, OR turning inside to USE the situation to understand ones own psychic reactions and mechanics, but why couldn't the one accompany the other? We could do both, right, use an outside event to understand and improve ourselves, AND do our best to improve the situation. Otherwise, it would really amount to escapism and solipsism. This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the intellect mistaking? * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires outside our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore actually outside of our own immediate power to fulfill. By mistakenly believing in the power of spacetime we actually disempower ourself -- often with acute suffering, for this is Nature's way of telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to be the truth. Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through this predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a heartfelt surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves about what our deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need is for some thing like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment, contentment, ecstasy, creatorship, prosperity, Life, Love, Wholeness, God, Heaven, coming Home -- all different angles of the same thing -- and that this burning need really, really matters Here and Now, and that this burning need is obviously *never* going to be fulfilled sometime in the future, because the future is an illusory carrot on a stick; that permanent peace or contentment or fulfillment or world-perfection or God we so ardently desire, by definition must lie in unconditional Permanence, not in the ever-changing and conditional waves of spacetime. So if our fulfillment is to be permanent, it must be outside of spacetime; hence our fulfillment must somehow already be present Here and Now. So we actually surrender our belief in the resistance of spacetime, and we surrender or rise up into the ever-present fulfillment of our deepest need, Here and Now, on the permanent feeling-level. This is where the discriminative intellect is no longer mistaken, for it is surrendered into intuitively appreciating the Great Mystery of Us, the heartfelt perfection of God's Will in this moment, Here and Now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
Right, I was asking in this case for an example of the pragyaparadh thingie - 'mistake of the intellect', which is somewhat abstract wrt everyday life. I understand it better as a principle or dynamic of life vs. a blueprint for how to act or think. I wouldn't advocate if I were hungry to get in touch with myself vs. find some food - lol. I find it helpful when examining any anger or sadness or frustration or fear that may arise in me, and tracing that back to some refusal of mine to accept where I am, vs. blaming some external source. I am sure there a lot of uses for it.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution within. Couldn't it be, instead of an 'either or' and 'as well as'? As you paint it now, it sounds as it is a contradiction, turning outside to improve any given situation, OR turning inside to USE the situation to understand ones own psychic reactions and mechanics, but why couldn't the one accompany the other? We could do both, right, use an outside event to understand and improve ourselves, AND do our best to improve the situation. Otherwise, it would really amount to escapism and solipsism. This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the intellect mistaking? * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires outside our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore actually outside of our own immediate power to fulfill. By mistakenly believing in the power of spacetime we actually disempower ourself -- often with acute suffering, for this is Nature's way of telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to be the truth. Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through this predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a heartfelt surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves about what our deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need is for some thing like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment, contentment, ecstasy, creatorship, prosperity, Life, Love, Wholeness, God, Heaven, coming Home -- all different angles of the same thing -- and that this burning need really, really matters Here and Now, and that this burning need is obviously *never* going to be fulfilled sometime in the future, because the future is an illusory carrot on a stick; that permanent peace or contentment or fulfillment or world-perfection or God we so ardently desire, by definition must lie in unconditional Permanence, not in the ever-changing and conditional waves of spacetime. So if our fulfillment is to be permanent, it must be outside of spacetime; hence our fulfillment must somehow already be present Here and Now. So we actually surrender our belief in the resistance of spacetime, and we surrender or rise up into the ever-present fulfillment of our deepest need, Here and Now, on the permanent feeling-level. This is where the discriminative intellect is no longer mistaken, for it is surrendered into intuitively appreciating the Great Mystery of Us, the heartfelt perfection of God's Will in this moment, Here and Now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Right, I was asking in this case for an example of the pragyaparadh thingie - 'mistake of the intellect', Coincidence, I was just looking up, googling the sankrit term, as I had forgotten it, and came across some meovement and also some non-movement definitions. Here of the later: prajnaparadha /praj·na·pa·ra·dha/ (pruj#8243;nah-pah-rah-thah´) [Sanskrit] in ayurveda, deliberate, willful indulgence in unhealthy practices that leads to unbalanced body functions and disease. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prajnaparadha I think this is another nice explanation: PragnyaParadh roughly translates to crimes against one's own wisdom. Its a concept in Ayurveda (and Vedanta and Yoga) which implies conscience without the christian overlay of sin. I like this term because it summarizes neatly the importance of the Truth within, as well as identifies the consequences of ignoring that small clear voice. Disease happens because of PradnyaParadh - not taking care of ourselves when we know better. All difficult challenges are made worse because of this - to know better after all, is to have the opportunity to do better. Free will is what allows us to make those choices. http://aparnagnanashini.blogspot.com/2010/11/pradnyapragnyaprajnaparadh.html In TM Ayurveda, there is a more broad connection to the idea of Avidya in Advaita, pragya aparadh is the loss of the Self, of Wholeness in favor of the parts. Its like maya in vedanta, which makes the stick appear to be a snake, an overlay over reality, a *superimpostion*. (Did anyone ever hear this word by a neo-advaita teacher?) which is somewhat abstract wrt everyday life. I understand it better as a principle or dynamic of life vs. a blueprint for how to act or think. I wouldn't advocate if I were hungry to get in touch with myself vs. find some food - lol. I find it helpful when examining any anger or sadness or frustration or fear that may arise in me, and tracing that back to some refusal of mine to accept where I am, vs. blaming some external source. I am sure there a lot of uses for it.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution within. Couldn't it be, instead of an 'either or' and 'as well as'? As you paint it now, it sounds as it is a contradiction, turning outside to improve any given situation, OR turning inside to USE the situation to understand ones own psychic reactions and mechanics, but why couldn't the one accompany the other? We could do both, right, use an outside event to understand and improve ourselves, AND do our best to improve the situation. Otherwise, it would really amount to escapism and solipsism. This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the intellect mistaking? * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires outside our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore actually outside of our own immediate power to fulfill. By mistakenly believing in the power of spacetime we actually disempower ourself -- often with acute suffering, for this is Nature's way of telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to be the truth. Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through this predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a heartfelt surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves about what our deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need is for some thing like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:22 PM, blusc0ut wrote: a *superimpostion*. (Did anyone ever hear this word by a neo-advaita teacher?) Yes, but it is rather rare. It's usually from Neo-A's who had actual advaita vedanta gurusst... Pretty funny how the Sankrit word Aropa (a-ROPE-uh) is so close to the Anglish word rope, as in 'the rope and the snake'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
Interesting - I like both of those definitions, although they both involve conscious action on the part of the doer. I was seeing pragnyaparadh as one of those Gee I never thought of that type of things, unconscious behavior to blame the 'outside'. A truer mistake, if you will, than consciously BSing oneself. The reason being, I can't conceive of willfully doing something to hurt myself, so I have to conclude someone acting in that way would be virtually asleep - not much awareness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Right, I was asking in this case for an example of the pragyaparadh thingie - 'mistake of the intellect', Coincidence, I was just looking up, googling the sankrit term, as I had forgotten it, and came across some meovement and also some non-movement definitions. Here of the later: prajnaparadha /praj·na·pa·ra·dha/ (pruj#8243;nah-pah-rah-thah´) [Sanskrit] in ayurveda, deliberate, willful indulgence in unhealthy practices that leads to unbalanced body functions and disease. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prajnaparadha I think this is another nice explanation: PragnyaParadh roughly translates to crimes against one's own wisdom. Its a concept in Ayurveda (and Vedanta and Yoga) which implies conscience without the christian overlay of sin. I like this term because it summarizes neatly the importance of the Truth within, as well as identifies the consequences of ignoring that small clear voice. Disease happens because of PradnyaParadh - not taking care of ourselves when we know better. All difficult challenges are made worse because of this - to know better after all, is to have the opportunity to do better. Free will is what allows us to make those choices. http://aparnagnanashini.blogspot.com/2010/11/pradnyapragnyaprajnaparadh.html In TM Ayurveda, there is a more broad connection to the idea of Avidya in Advaita, pragya aparadh is the loss of the Self, of Wholeness in favor of the parts. Its like maya in vedanta, which makes the stick appear to be a snake, an overlay over reality, a *superimpostion*. (Did anyone ever hear this word by a neo-advaita teacher?) which is somewhat abstract wrt everyday life. I understand it better as a principle or dynamic of life vs. a blueprint for how to act or think. I wouldn't advocate if I were hungry to get in touch with myself vs. find some food - lol. I find it helpful when examining any anger or sadness or frustration or fear that may arise in me, and tracing that back to some refusal of mine to accept where I am, vs. blaming some external source. I am sure there a lot of uses for it.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution within. Couldn't it be, instead of an 'either or' and 'as well as'? As you paint it now, it sounds as it is a contradiction, turning outside to improve any given situation, OR turning inside to USE the situation to understand ones own psychic reactions and mechanics, but why couldn't the one accompany the other? We could do both, right, use an outside event to understand and improve ourselves, AND do our best to improve the situation. Otherwise, it would really amount to escapism and solipsism. This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the intellect mistaking? * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires outside our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore actually
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
Its like maya in vedanta, which makes the stick appear to be a snake, an overlay over reality, a *superimpostion*. (Did anyone ever hear this word by a neo-advaita teacher?) Vaj: Yes, but it is rather rare. Just about everyone on the planet, whether 'neo' or not, knows that the superimposition doctrine is the cornerstone of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. Shankaracharya explains the genesis of ignorance and our perception of the plurality of things in terms of superimposition, what Maharishi called 'identification'. The classic example is the rope-snake metaphor: In the night you see a snake; in the light of day you realize what you thought was a snake was but a coiled-up rope. Likewise, the horns on a hare; a sky-flower; or fool's gold. The perception of a plurality of things where there is only one thing, is a superimposition. For example, the analogy of the space in the pot - the point being that there is only one space inside or outside the pot. It is a superimposition to think that there is a 'pot' with different spaces inside and out, when in reality there is just one space everywhere. That's the difference between relative ignorance and absolute knowledge. Read more: 'A Companion Encyclopedia of Asia Philosophy' By Brian Carr and Indira Mahalingam Routledge, 1997
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution within. This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-) * * * Yes! Once again, far more succinct than my offering. :-) Prajnaparadh may indeed be described as the mistake of placing our faith in Doing over Being, trying to Do (something) in order to Be (fulfilled), whereas if we quicken first to the subtle but everpresent glory of Being (fulfilled), Doing flows effortlessly. Or, established in Being (or Unity), perform Action. This appears to be the gist of what Krishna means when saying to perform action without concern for its fruits, after dedicating the fruits to Me. The whole carrot-on-a-stick analogy refers mostly to the Time half of the Space-Time illusion or lie, when we believe ourselves to be inside Time, but there may also be a Space aspect to prajnaparadh. When we believe ourselves to be primarily inside Space, we tend to identify with one point-Self as opposed to another, and often create suffering for ourself by trying to discriminate or discern which point-of-view is right. As the intellect clarifies, some I-points find that holding to either end of the conflict is painful, simply because of the not-Self exclusion involved in choosing. Here, the solution may involve realizing that the heartfelt truth does not lie in choosing between the self and the other, but in embracing both self and other simultaneously, as a pattern within Us.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share? * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive here is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so that I can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has accomplished that most beautifully. Rory, I am enjoying these dialogues of you and Jim and others a lot. My experience too. I find it fun to have someone else put words to it in a way that I may not be verbal. It is a fun stabilization as this goes along. Is nice that you guys were able to come back in here to FFL and feel safe enough to talk. I like the way you are swallowing up whole the aggression as it comes back and tries its hold. Welcome back. -Dug in FF Looking through old hymns now, this one made me think of this post of yours. Rise, rise my soul, and leave the ground, Stretch all thy thoughts abroad, and rouse up every tuneful sound To praise the eternal Unified Field) Creatures with all their endless race, Thy pow'r and praise proclaim; But saints that taste Thy richer grace Delight to bless Thy name. -Watts 1707
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
http://www.fantasygallery.net/roberts/art_8_mynewpal.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share? * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive here is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so that I can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has accomplished that most beautifully. Rory, I am enjoying these dialogues of you and Jim and others a lot. My experience too. I find it fun to have someone else put words to it in a way that I may not be verbal. It is a fun stabilization as this goes along. Is nice that you guys were able to come back in here to FFL and feel safe enough to talk. I like the way you are swallowing up whole the aggression as it comes back and tries its hold. Welcome back. -Dug in FF Looking through old hymns now, this one made me think of this post of yours. Rise, rise my soul, and leave the ground, Stretch all thy thoughts abroad, and rouse up every tuneful sound To praise the eternal Unified Field) Creatures with all their endless race, Thy pow'r and praise proclaim; But saints that taste Thy richer grace Delight to bless Thy name. -Watts 1707
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Rory, I am enjoying these dialogues of you and Jim and others a lot. My experience too. I find it fun to have someone else put words to it in a way that I may not be verbal. It is a fun stabilization as this goes along. Is nice that you guys were able to come back in here to FFL and feel safe enough to talk. I like the way you are swallowing up whole the aggression as it comes back and tries its hold. Welcome back. -Dug in FF Looking through old hymns now, this one made me think of this post of yours. Rise, rise my soul, and leave the ground, Stretch all thy thoughts abroad, and rouse up every tuneful sound To praise the eternal Unified Field) Creatures with all their endless race, Thy pow'r and praise proclaim; But saints that taste Thy richer grace Delight to bless Thy name. -Watts 1707 * * * Thanks, D(o)ug! It is a pleasure to be here. I didn't leave because it wasn't safe, though -- Some of my more polarizing I-points just had to be integrated and Loved and healed in silence :-) Excellent hymn! Definitely catches some of the flavor of all of Us singing eternally in harmony. Personally, I have no problem with Eternal God, though Unified Field evokes a bit more of our cooperative and non-local resonance, perhaps rather like the primordial Body of Christ :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share? * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive here is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so that I can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has accomplished that most beautifully.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
http://www.startlingart.com/Viewer.asp?ImageSource=fine_artFileName=BeCarefullWhatyouAskFor --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share? * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive here is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so that I can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has accomplished that most beautifully.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: OK, everybody, I give up! Having already flooded the web with 28 posts, I am going to try to sum up in this one. First, my apologies, Judy, in coming off as hostile and angry to you. I certainly am no stranger to those lovely emotions, and doubtless they are in here somewhere. snip I found them! Absolutely stunning! Been loving it all night. Truly impressive nuclear rage, hostility, and burning desire to be *right*! Many thanks for pointing it out, Judy; I *really* appreciate it; it's been a lot of fun integrating this ancient Dragon-Being and bringing it Home again... God, I love FFL! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: snip * * * Judy is correct; it is not possible for anyone to counteract the will of God, from Our point of view at any rate. However, it is entirely possible for people to resist what IS, to separate themselves from what IS and lie about it (it should be different), That is not a lie, Rory. It may be a mistake, it may be a mistake that results in suffering, but it isn't a lie. * * * It is not necessarily a conscious lie, no -- but it is indeed a (sometimes very subtle) lie, in my experience, anyhow: a thought which contradicts the truth. It is a lie which we have told ourselves and which we ourselves believe -- hence the suffering. Nor, BTW, is separateness a belief. Rather, it's an *experiential reality* for the resisters, just as much as non-separateness is for the non-resisters. * * * It is an experiential reality based upon our believing our own lies, in my experience. YMMV, of course. Keep using terms like lie and belief if what you want to do is *reinforce* resistance and separateness. * * * I am trying to point out the that the core of our resistance and separateness in any given moment is a (usually very) subtle lie which we have told ourselves and which we (as yet) unconsciously believe. At least in my field of awareness, I am doing some great work on untangling these lies, if I do say so myself! Again, YMMV :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: snip * * * Judy is correct; it is not possible for anyone to counteract the will of God, from Our point of view at any rate. However, it is entirely possible for people to resist what IS, to separate themselves from what IS and lie about it (it should be different), That is not a lie, Rory. It may be a mistake, it may be a mistake that results in suffering, but it isn't a lie. * * * It is not necessarily a conscious lie, no -- but it is indeed a (sometimes very subtle) lie, in my experience, anyhow: a thought which contradicts the truth. If I don't know the truth experientially--if my experiential reality is of separateness--then you simply cannot legitimately call it a lie. I'm telling the truth about my experiential reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: If I don't know the truth experientially--if my experiential reality is of separateness--then you simply cannot legitimately call it a lie. I'm telling the truth about my experiential reality. * * * Yes! Separateness is an entirely legitimate experiential reality, one based on our subtle rejection of what IS. And our perception of our experiential reality -- what IS -- is completely fine, completely innocent, no matter what we think. Where it hurts -- what I am calling a lie -- is when we think it *should* be different than that. For example, the thought, Maharishi (or pick anyone) is a liar/demon/charlatan/energy-vampire/fool on the hill/etc. (pick a trait, any trait) is completely fine, if that is our actual innocent thought. That's just the movie or story we happen to have created for ourselves in that moment. So far, so good. That's what it's all about -- story-telling, for fun and profit: i.e. self-discovery. That is not what I would call the Lie, if we actually believe what we are telling ourselves. That's actually our Truth in this moment. (And if someone else wants to come in and challenge that Truth with alternative data, all well and good!) Where we get into trouble (or suffering) is when we believe the subtle Lie -- or *resistance* -- around that original thought, thus: Maharishi (or anyone) *shouldn't* be a liar/demon/charlatan/energy-vampire/fool on the hill -- that's what hurts. That's where the rejection of our Truth -- or the actual Lie -- comes in, and that's what separates Us from our own movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that, except it hurts when we do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: If I don't know the truth experientially--if my experiential reality is of separateness--then you simply cannot legitimately call it a lie. I'm telling the truth about my experiential reality. * * * Yes! Separateness is an entirely legitimate experiential reality, one based on our subtle rejection of what IS. And our perception of our experiential reality -- what IS -- is completely fine, completely innocent, no matter what we think. Where it hurts -- what I am calling a lie -- is when we think it *should* be different than that. I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise. As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie. In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh, well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as it is. It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise. As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie. In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh, well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as it is. It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be for me. * * * OK. Perfection aside, how about the thought, It must be OK for this terrible suffering to BE, because it IS in this moment? And even, it must be OK for me to feel awful about this terrible suffering, because I *do* in this moment?... Would that be a lie also? I see it as simply surrendering to what IS, simply because it IS. We don't have to understand it; we don't have to like it; we simply have to let it BE, in this moment. Refusal to do so is what I am calling the big Lie. As the AA people are wont to say, when we argue with with Reality, we only lose 100% of the time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise. As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie. In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh, well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as it is. It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be for me. * * * OK. Perfection aside, how about the thought, It must be OK for this terrible suffering to BE, because it IS in this moment? That would be an utterly irrelevant thought for me. The relevant thought would be, This terrible suffering should not exist one moment longer. And even, it must be OK for me to feel awful about this terrible suffering, because I *do* in this moment?... Would that be a lie also? Again, irrelevant. I see it as simply surrendering to what IS, simply because it IS. We don't have to understand it; we don't have to like it; we simply have to let it BE, in this moment. We don't have any choice in this moment but to let it be, so that's also irrelevant. Refusal to do so is what I am calling the big Lie. As the AA people are wont to say, when we argue with with Reality, we only lose 100% of the time. I'm not sure they're talking about Reality, as opposed to plain-vanilla, lower-case reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
Rory wrote: OK. Perfection aside, how about the thought, It must be OK for this terrible suffering to BE, because it IS in this moment? authfriend jstein@... wrote: That would be an utterly irrelevant thought for me. The relevant thought would be, This terrible suffering should not exist one moment longer. * * * Interesting! How does your bodymind feel when you hold that thought? For me that would probably still be resistance to its existence in this moment, and would create tension, contraction, anger, etc., but YMMV. RG: And even, it must be OK for me to feel awful about this terrible suffering, because I *do* in this moment?... Would that be a lie also? JS: Again, irrelevant. * * * Irrelevant to what? RG: I see it as simply surrendering to what IS, simply because it IS. We don't have to understand it; we don't have to like it; we simply have to let it BE, in this moment. JS: We don't have any choice in this moment but to let it be, so that's also irrelevant. * * * Oh, OK, I see. But that's exactly it! I find that that's the key to my suffering. I find that I *am* subtly resisting what IS in this moment when I suffer. And when I uncover that subtle resistance, and try holding the opposite thought -- it *should* be in this moment -- it dissolves the samskara. RG: Refusal to do so is what I am calling the big Lie. As the AA people are wont to say, when we argue with with Reality, we only lose 100% of the time. JS: I'm not sure they're talking about Reality, as opposed to plain-vanilla, lower-case reality. * * * That's the big joke! I find that reality *is* Reality, when we don't resist it!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
To me this is one of those discussions which IMHO can't actually be resolved.People who are awake' will experience reality ,whatever the hell that is :), as non dual, people who are notawake will experience reality as separate from the self, I think the mistake is thinking that one state is somehow closer to the TRUTH than the other.For me Reality is an endless Mystery.One thing I am sure about is that I have no clue what the TRUTH: is, although I do have a lot of theories about what it is! LOL.I am also pretty sure that nobody else has clue either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise. As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie. In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh, well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as it is. It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be for me. * * * OK. Perfection aside, how about the thought, It must be OK for this terrible suffering to BE, because it IS in this moment? That would be an utterly irrelevant thought for me. The relevant thought would be, This terrible suffering should not exist one moment longer. And even, it must be OK for me to feel awful about this terrible suffering, because I *do* in this moment?... Would that be a lie also? Again, irrelevant. I see it as simply surrendering to what IS, simply because it IS. We don't have to understand it; we don't have to like it; we simply have to let it BE, in this moment. We don't have any choice in this moment but to let it be, so that's also irrelevant. Refusal to do so is what I am calling the big Lie. As the AA people are wont to say, when we argue with with Reality, we only lose 100% of the time. I'm not sure they're talking about Reality, as opposed to plain-vanilla, lower-case reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shanti2218411 kc21d@... wrote: To me this is one of those discussions which IMHO can't actually be resolved.People who are awake' will experience reality ,whatever the hell that is :), as non dual, people who are notawake will experience reality as separate from the self, I think the mistake is thinking that one state is somehow closer to the TRUTH than the other.For me Reality is an endless Mystery.One thing I am sure about is that I have no clue what the TRUTH: is, although I do have a lot of theories about what it is! LOL.I am also pretty sure that nobody else has clue either. * * * Quite right; Reality is indeed an endless Mystery. I am not actually talking here about grasping Reality; I am only speaking of our resistance to what we *think* it is -- i.e., our subtle resistance to whatever movie or story we are superimposing upon the endless Mystery: The thought that This should not be! That is what I find actually contracts us and creates our suffering.