Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Thanks for the input. authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I like it because it reinforces the recognition > that these Sanskrit words (read Arabic for "Houri") are > provisional terms, not necessarily fit yet to be > reified into English. > > I understand how you, as an editor, might find this mode of > presentation to be contra-instinctual for a trained English > reader. However, rather than just dismissing it, tell me why > you might find it confusing or irritating. Well, actually, I did. I said I didn't think it was called for, i.e., there was no good reason *for* doing it in an informal forum like this, where whether these terms are fit yet to be reified into English isn't at issue, and it made the text more difficult to read. As an editor, I think anything about the technical details of a piece of writing that causes the reader to go "Huh?" even for a split second inhibits communication of the *content* of the writing; it disturbs the flow and distracts the reader's attention. No biggie, and I really wasn't objecting to your use of the hyphens so much as I was curious to know why you were using them. - Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I like it because it reinforces the recognition > that these Sanskrit words (read Arabic for "Houri") are > provisional terms, not necessarily fit yet to be > reified into English. > > I understand how you, as an editor, might find this mode of > presentation to be contra-instinctual for a trained English > reader. However, rather than just dismissing it, tell me why > you might find it confusing or irritating. Well, actually, I did. I said I didn't think it was called for, i.e., there was no good reason *for* doing it in an informal forum like this, where whether these terms are fit yet to be reified into English isn't at issue, and it made the text more difficult to read. As an editor, I think anything about the technical details of a piece of writing that causes the reader to go "Huh?" even for a split second inhibits communication of the *content* of the writing; it disturbs the flow and distracts the reader's attention. No biggie, and I really wasn't objecting to your use of the hyphens so much as I was curious to know why you were using them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Tautology is mere rhetoric, the use of redundant > > > language that adds no information whatsoever. > > > > > Lol, I'm afraid a quick jump into Wikipedia will not > > educate you on this topic willtex. > > > off_world_beings wrote: > > Take 3 weeks, come back when you understand tautology > > in LOGIC, which is not the same thing as RHETORIC. > > > Tautology in logic is a statement of propositional logic > which can be inferred from any proposition whatsoever.>> I asked you to study it for 3 weeks full-time, then come back when you have a proper understanding of it, and explain it in your own words. Go ahead now, we'll see you in 3 weeks. > Are we to infer that you used logic when you said that > "qtmpkt and yagyax are Shempgurk under other guises". >> I employed fuzzy logic. OffWorld > > LOL! > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
> > Tautology is mere rhetoric, the use of redundant > > language that adds no information whatsoever. > > > Lol, I'm afraid a quick jump into Wikipedia will not > educate you on this topic willtex. > off_world_beings wrote: > Take 3 weeks, come back when you understand tautology > in LOGIC, which is not the same thing as RHETORIC. > Tautology in logic is a statement of propositional logic which can be inferred from any proposition whatsoever. Are we to infer that you used logic when you said that "qtmpkt and yagyax are Shempgurk under other guises". LOL! > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > off_world_beings wrote: > > Bliss is entirely comfortable, as those who have > > experienced it know. Total comfort is entirely > > blissful, as those who can appreciate it to > > the fullest know. > > > Tautology is mere rhetoric, the use of redundant > language that adds no information whatsoever. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology>> Lol, I'm afraid a quick jump into Wikipedia will not educate you on this topic willtex. Take 3 weeks, come back when you understand tautology in LOGIC, which is not the same thing as RHETORIC. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Thanks, Offworld, btw one of my hobbies is getting a "rise" out of > people...it's a fun game; >> Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a retard, since that is the games of the mentally deficient. I am sorry. (Great hobby you go there) (people should have some signal on the internet to let people know they are mentally retarded . It would make for clearer interactions - compassion for the retard an' all that) < claim of illogic in your chain of statements. I'll just mention one > item:, to quote: > > Being at home, therefore you are > happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew > up as a species. > > I simply can't fathom how you arrived at "therefore you are happy in > this universe", from "being at home". Doesn't compute.>> No, I realise now, why it won't compute under any efforts by your brain. Makes sense now. Enjoy your day. Look three ways when crossing the road. Don't kick any dogs today, and keep your hands out of the toilet bowl. Ok bud...enjoy. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
off_world_beings wrote: > Bliss is entirely comfortable, as those who have > experienced it know. Total comfort is entirely > blissful, as those who can appreciate it to > the fullest know. > Tautology is mere rhetoric, the use of redundant language that adds no information whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--Thanks, Offworld, btw one of my hobbies is getting a "rise" out of people...it's a fun game; nevertheless this doesn't detract from my claim of illogic in your chain of statements. I'll just mention one item:, to quote: Being at home, therefore you are happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. I simply can't fathom how you arrived at "therefore you are happy in this universe", from "being at home". Doesn't compute. End of story. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > --I agree with Yagyax on this. There is no serious attempt to > > connect the premise statements to the final conclusion; and thus > the > > logic is seriously deficient. Grade, "F". > > > Lol, you still don't have a clue what a tautology is do you. > > You wouldn't even get into the class, never mind earn a grade. > > You're a joke, and seriously zero logic, nor one rational sentence > from you whatsover. Truly pathetic. How can you say there is no > serious attempt, when you have offered nothing whatsoever. Your guts > are churning with guilt at the emptyness of your soul. You can > actually feel that right now can't you. It is eating you and you > cannot stop it. I am sorry for your fate, but you brought it upon > yourself little man. > > Stop wasting my time with your strawman arguments and irrational > statements. > > OffWorld > > > > > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" wrote: > > > > > > > > ---Thanks, Bronte!...precisely what I said. Those that say Life > > is > > > > Bliss have arrived at that conclusion through direct > experience. > > One > > > > would have difficulty arriving at that conclusion through logic > > > alone.>> > > > > > > You are entirely wrong and self-deluded about that. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --I agree with Yagyax on this. There is no serious attempt to > connect the premise statements to the final conclusion; and thus the > logic is seriously deficient. Grade, "F". Lol, you still don't have a clue what a tautology is do you. You wouldn't even get into the class, never mind earn a grade. You're a joke, and seriously zero logic, nor one rational sentence from you whatsover. Truly pathetic. How can you say there is no serious attempt, when you have offered nothing whatsoever. Your guts are churning with guilt at the emptyness of your soul. You can actually feel that right now can't you. It is eating you and you cannot stop it. I am sorry for your fate, but you brought it upon yourself little man. Stop wasting my time with your strawman arguments and irrational statements. OffWorld > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" wrote: > > > > > > ---Thanks, Bronte!...precisely what I said. Those that say Life > is > > > Bliss have arrived at that conclusion through direct experience. > One > > > would have difficulty arriving at that conclusion through logic > > alone.>> > > > > You are entirely wrong and self-deluded about that. > > > > OffWorld > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--I agree with Yagyax on this. There is no serious attempt to connect the premise statements to the final conclusion; and thus the logic is seriously deficient. Grade, "F". - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" wrote: > > > > ---Thanks, Bronte!...precisely what I said. Those that say Life is > > Bliss have arrived at that conclusion through direct experience. One > > would have difficulty arriving at that conclusion through logic > alone.>> > > You are entirely wrong and self-deluded about that. > > OffWorld >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Thanks, Bronte!...precisely what I said. Those that say Life is > Bliss have arrived at that conclusion through direct experience. One > would have difficulty arriving at that conclusion through logic alone.>> You are entirely wrong and self-deluded about that. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Ha ha yagyax can't remoteley engage in rational sentences except to say: " that is wrong", "that is bullshit", "you don't know what you are talking about", or "pure baloney" Truly the most pathetic excuses for ignorance I have ever seen. You and GW Bush should write a book together on how to avoid reason, by resorting to childish rhetoric.. Not one single sentance you have uttered has any reasoning or rationale whatsoever...only insults. I have 6 foot rope you can borrow. Should do the trick, and no-one will notice you have passed on. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Below - pure baloney, sounds like "Maharishi-talk", not even worth > commenting on; count me out of this discussion from now on. I have > some serious TV watching to do.: > to quote, utter gobbledegook:... > > > "Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of > existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. > Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and > propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. > Thereforeyou are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are > happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew > up as a species. > Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this > universe. All else is illusion. > Therefore, life is bliss. > All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue." > > > > > > > > > > > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" wrote: > > > > > > ---Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he > > used > > > the phrase "Being-In-Itself") on the basis of his own experience, > > as > > > does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron > Katie?)? > > >> > > > > That's right, attack the man, not the argument, there's a good > Neocon. > > > > > > > But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen > one > > > statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life > > is > > > Bliss".>> > > > > Than you have not understood this modern and perfect argument below > > (written by me): > > > > > > "Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of > > existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. > > Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and > > propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. > > Thereforeyou are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are > > happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew > > up as a species. > > Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this > > universe. All else is illusion. > > Therefore, life is bliss. > > All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue." > > > > > > > > > There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there > is > > > that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can > > > conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of > > > holes, like cheese.. > > > > And you have zero logic or rationale or ANY argument whatsoever > > behind anything you say, except to attack me. Pathetic little man > you > > are. > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ---Offworld, your premises simply don't lead to the > > > > conclusion "Life > > > > > is Bliss". So, you're saying one can conclude this from logic > > > > alone? >> > > > > > > > > Absolutely. > > > > > > > > > Preposterous! There's no more weight to that conclusion from > > the > > > > > shoddy premises you have presented that the conclusion "Life > is > > a > > > > > bummer, then you die"...which many intelligent logicians > > > believe.>> > > > > > > > > These are inexperienced and illogical "logicians" you speak of. > > > > To say "life is a bummer, and then you die" is like a child > > saying > > > > "I can't go to bed, there's a boogey man under the bed". > > > > I am being entirely descriptive here. Not sarcastic. The level > of > > > > rational perception that comes up with such a thing, is weak, > > > > unfounded, and built on shifting sands. > > > > > > > > > Logic alone will not lead one to your conclusion, otherwise > > > > > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have arrived at that. >> > > > > > > > > They did. > > > > > > > > > > > > Night night all. Sleep tight. > > > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--Below - pure baloney, sounds like "Maharishi-talk", not even worth commenting on; count me out of this discussion from now on. I have some serious TV watching to do.: to quote, utter gobbledegook:... "Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Thereforeyou are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this universe. All else is illusion. Therefore, life is bliss. All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue." - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" wrote: > > > > ---Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he > used > > the phrase "Being-In-Itself") on the basis of his own experience, > as > > does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron Katie?)? > >> > > That's right, attack the man, not the argument, there's a good Neocon. > > > > But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen one > > statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life > is > > Bliss".>> > > Than you have not understood this modern and perfect argument below > (written by me): > > > "Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of > existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. > Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and > propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. > Thereforeyou are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are > happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew > up as a species. > Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this > universe. All else is illusion. > Therefore, life is bliss. > All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue." > > > > > There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there is > > that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can > > conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of > > holes, like cheese.. > > And you have zero logic or rationale or ANY argument whatsoever > behind anything you say, except to attack me. Pathetic little man you > are. > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ---Offworld, your premises simply don't lead to the > > > conclusion "Life > > > > is Bliss". So, you're saying one can conclude this from logic > > > alone? >> > > > > > > Absolutely. > > > > > > > Preposterous! There's no more weight to that conclusion from > the > > > > shoddy premises you have presented that the conclusion "Life is > a > > > > bummer, then you die"...which many intelligent logicians > > believe.>> > > > > > > These are inexperienced and illogical "logicians" you speak of. > > > To say "life is a bummer, and then you die" is like a child > saying > > > "I can't go to bed, there's a boogey man under the bed". > > > I am being entirely descriptive here. Not sarcastic. The level of > > > rational perception that comes up with such a thing, is weak, > > > unfounded, and built on shifting sands. > > > > > > > Logic alone will not lead one to your conclusion, otherwise > > > > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have arrived at that. >> > > > > > > They did. > > > > > > > > > Night night all. Sleep tight. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> > > > > > > > > > > Thankyou. > > > > > (you seem to be under the delusion that a tautology is a bad > > > thing > > > > in > > > > > logic. It is actually the highest goal of logic. You're > > > > understanding > > > > > of tautology needs some serious attention and time spent > > studying > > > > it. > > > > > Come back when you have studied it for 3 weeks minimum, full > > > time.) > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > because it's Bliss. >> > > > > > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > to "Entirely comfortable"; but that's the problem! >>> > > > > > > > > > > No I am not. You are under the delusion that words are pure > and > > > > > perfect. Wrong. > > > > > Every word or phrase has within it multiple layers of > INHERENT > > > > > meaning. Anyone watching this thread with a scintillating > > > intellect > > > > > embedded in their jyotish chart, is baffled by your lack of > > > ability
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
---Thanks, Bronte!...precisely what I said. Those that say Life is Bliss have arrived at that conclusion through direct experience. One would have difficulty arriving at that conclusion through logic alone. Invariably, such "logical" arguments tend to be on the same level of flawed discourse as some well known arguments in favor of the existence of "God" going back to Blaise Pascal and in the 20-th century, C.S. Lewis. A quick google search will turn up serious flaws in such arguments. The logic behind "Life is Bliss" turns out to be likewise deficient. If this boils down to a popularity contest, "life is a bummer, then you die" would win by a long shot. The people maintaining that position are no more or less deficient in logic than the "Life is Bliss" group. In the end, direct experience blows the logic away. PS: google "logical arguments for the existence of God". In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yagyax wrote: > > Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he used > the phrase "Being-In-Itself" ) on the basis of his own experience, as > does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron Katie?)? > But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen one > statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life is > Bliss". > There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there is > that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can > conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of > holes, like cheese.. > > > Bronte writes: > > Okay, I'm adding my two cents to this discussion. MMY was right: Life is Bliss, in is essential nature at least. Because what is life except an expression of the Infinite, which is a field of pure bliss (the one thing everyone in this forum agrees on, I expect)? If modern philosophers aren't saying the same, it's no doubt because they haven't experienced the transcendental side of their nature and therefore don't know the Bliss that is at the core of everything. > > > > - > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he used > the phrase "Being-In-Itself") on the basis of his own experience, as > does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron Katie?)? >> That's right, attack the man, not the argument, there's a good Neocon. > But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen one > statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life is > Bliss".>> Than you have not understood this modern and perfect argument below (written by me): "Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Thereforeyou are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this universe. All else is illusion. Therefore, life is bliss. All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue." > There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there is > that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can > conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of > holes, like cheese.. And you have zero logic or rationale or ANY argument whatsoever behind anything you say, except to attack me. Pathetic little man you are. OffWorld > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" > > wrote: > > > > > > ---Offworld, your premises simply don't lead to the > > conclusion "Life > > > is Bliss". So, you're saying one can conclude this from logic > > alone? >> > > > > Absolutely. > > > > > Preposterous! There's no more weight to that conclusion from the > > > shoddy premises you have presented that the conclusion "Life is a > > > bummer, then you die"...which many intelligent logicians > believe.>> > > > > These are inexperienced and illogical "logicians" you speak of. > > To say "life is a bummer, and then you die" is like a child saying > > "I can't go to bed, there's a boogey man under the bed". > > I am being entirely descriptive here. Not sarcastic. The level of > > rational perception that comes up with such a thing, is weak, > > unfounded, and built on shifting sands. > > > > > Logic alone will not lead one to your conclusion, otherwise > > > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have arrived at that. >> > > > > They did. > > > > > > Night night all. Sleep tight. > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> > > > > > > > > Thankyou. > > > > (you seem to be under the delusion that a tautology is a bad > > thing > > > in > > > > logic. It is actually the highest goal of logic. You're > > > understanding > > > > of tautology needs some serious attention and time spent > studying > > > it. > > > > Come back when you have studied it for 3 weeks minimum, full > > time.) > > > > > > > > < > > > > because it's Bliss. >> > > > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > < > > > > to "Entirely comfortable"; but that's the problem! >>> > > > > > > > > No I am not. You are under the delusion that words are pure and > > > > perfect. Wrong. > > > > Every word or phrase has within it multiple layers of INHERENT > > > > meaning. Anyone watching this thread with a scintillating > > intellect > > > > embedded in their jyotish chart, is baffled by your lack of > > ability > > > > to see the inherent meaning I gave, which is not contradictory > to > > > the > > > > more succinct meaning I gave. > > > > > > > > < > > > > the definitions to suit your purpose and wind up with a self- > > > > evident > > > > > truth,>>> > > > > > > > > You just don't have the experience in logic to see its obvious > > > logic. > > > > > > > > <> > > > > > > > > Yes. Thanks again. Tautology is the highest, most prized > > structure > > > of > > > > logic. I used to teach this stuff. > > > > > > > > < > > > > from "entirely comfortable". > > > > > However, where in the world do you get the > premise, "entirely > > > > > comfortable", >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bliss is entirely comfortable, as those who have experienced it > > > know. > > > > > > > > Total comfort is entirely blissful, as those who can appreciate > > it > > > to > > > > the fullest know. > > > > > > > > > > > > <> > > > planets?cuz I sure don't see them on this planet!>> > > > > > > > > Yes, this planet is in ignorance and self-delusion...as the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Yagyax wrote: Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he used the phrase "Being-In-Itself" ) on the basis of his own experience, as does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron Katie?)? But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen one statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life is Bliss". There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there is that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of holes, like cheese.. Bronte writes: Okay, I'm adding my two cents to this discussion. MMY was right: Life is Bliss, in is essential nature at least. Because what is life except an expression of the Infinite, which is a field of pure bliss (the one thing everyone in this forum agrees on, I expect)? If modern philosophers aren't saying the same, it's no doubt because they haven't experienced the transcendental side of their nature and therefore don't know the Bliss that is at the core of everything. - Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
---Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he used the phrase "Being-In-Itself") on the basis of his own experience, as does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron Katie?)? But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen one statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life is Bliss". There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there is that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of holes, like cheese.. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" > wrote: > > > > ---Offworld, your premises simply don't lead to the > conclusion "Life > > is Bliss". So, you're saying one can conclude this from logic > alone? >> > > Absolutely. > > > Preposterous! There's no more weight to that conclusion from the > > shoddy premises you have presented that the conclusion "Life is a > > bummer, then you die"...which many intelligent logicians believe.>> > > These are inexperienced and illogical "logicians" you speak of. > To say "life is a bummer, and then you die" is like a child saying > "I can't go to bed, there's a boogey man under the bed". > I am being entirely descriptive here. Not sarcastic. The level of > rational perception that comes up with such a thing, is weak, > unfounded, and built on shifting sands. > > > Logic alone will not lead one to your conclusion, otherwise > > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have arrived at that. >> > > They did. > > > Night night all. Sleep tight. > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" wrote: > > > > > > > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> > > > > > > Thankyou. > > > (you seem to be under the delusion that a tautology is a bad > thing > > in > > > logic. It is actually the highest goal of logic. You're > > understanding > > > of tautology needs some serious attention and time spent studying > > it. > > > Come back when you have studied it for 3 weeks minimum, full > time.) > > > > > > < > > > because it's Bliss. >> > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > < > > > to "Entirely comfortable"; but that's the problem! >>> > > > > > > No I am not. You are under the delusion that words are pure and > > > perfect. Wrong. > > > Every word or phrase has within it multiple layers of INHERENT > > > meaning. Anyone watching this thread with a scintillating > intellect > > > embedded in their jyotish chart, is baffled by your lack of > ability > > > to see the inherent meaning I gave, which is not contradictory to > > the > > > more succinct meaning I gave. > > > > > > < > > > the definitions to suit your purpose and wind up with a self- > > > evident > > > > truth,>>> > > > > > > You just don't have the experience in logic to see its obvious > > logic. > > > > > > <> > > > > > > Yes. Thanks again. Tautology is the highest, most prized > structure > > of > > > logic. I used to teach this stuff. > > > > > > < > > > from "entirely comfortable". > > > > However, where in the world do you get the premise, "entirely > > > > comfortable", >>> > > > > > > > > > Bliss is entirely comfortable, as those who have experienced it > > know. > > > > > > Total comfort is entirely blissful, as those who can appreciate > it > > to > > > the fullest know. > > > > > > > > > <> > > planets?cuz I sure don't see them on this planet!>> > > > > > > Yes, this planet is in ignorance and self-delusion...as the > masters > > > have stated time and time again. > > > > > > WAKE UP ! ! ! > > > The truth is out thereand it is bliss. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Offworld, your premises simply don't lead to the conclusion "Life > is Bliss". So, you're saying one can conclude this from logic alone? >> Absolutely. > Preposterous! There's no more weight to that conclusion from the > shoddy premises you have presented that the conclusion "Life is a > bummer, then you die"...which many intelligent logicians believe.>> These are inexperienced and illogical "logicians" you speak of. To say "life is a bummer, and then you die" is like a child saying "I can't go to bed, there's a boogey man under the bed". I am being entirely descriptive here. Not sarcastic. The level of rational perception that comes up with such a thing, is weak, unfounded, and built on shifting sands. > Logic alone will not lead one to your conclusion, otherwise > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have arrived at that. >> They did. Night night all. Sleep tight. OffWorld > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" wrote: > > > > > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> > > > > Thankyou. > > (you seem to be under the delusion that a tautology is a bad thing > in > > logic. It is actually the highest goal of logic. You're > understanding > > of tautology needs some serious attention and time spent studying > it. > > Come back when you have studied it for 3 weeks minimum, full time.) > > > > < > > because it's Bliss. >> > > > > Huh? > > > > < > > to "Entirely comfortable"; but that's the problem! >>> > > > > No I am not. You are under the delusion that words are pure and > > perfect. Wrong. > > Every word or phrase has within it multiple layers of INHERENT > > meaning. Anyone watching this thread with a scintillating intellect > > embedded in their jyotish chart, is baffled by your lack of ability > > to see the inherent meaning I gave, which is not contradictory to > the > > more succinct meaning I gave. > > > > < > > the definitions to suit your purpose and wind up with a self- > > evident > > > truth,>>> > > > > You just don't have the experience in logic to see its obvious > logic. > > > > <> > > > > Yes. Thanks again. Tautology is the highest, most prized structure > of > > logic. I used to teach this stuff. > > > > < > > from "entirely comfortable". > > > However, where in the world do you get the premise, "entirely > > > comfortable", >>> > > > > > > Bliss is entirely comfortable, as those who have experienced it > know. > > > > Total comfort is entirely blissful, as those who can appreciate it > to > > the fullest know. > > > > > > <> > planets?cuz I sure don't see them on this planet!>> > > > > Yes, this planet is in ignorance and self-delusion...as the masters > > have stated time and time again. > > > > WAKE UP ! ! ! > > The truth is out thereand it is bliss. > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > . > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
---Offworld, your premises simply don't lead to the conclusion "Life is Bliss". So, you're saying one can conclude this from logic alone? Preposterous! There's no more weight to that conclusion from the shoddy premises you have presented that the conclusion "Life is a bummer, then you die"...which many intelligent logicians believe. Logic alone will not lead one to your conclusion, otherwise Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have arrived at that. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" wrote: > > > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> > > Thankyou. > (you seem to be under the delusion that a tautology is a bad thing in > logic. It is actually the highest goal of logic. You're understanding > of tautology needs some serious attention and time spent studying it. > Come back when you have studied it for 3 weeks minimum, full time.) > > < > because it's Bliss. >> > > Huh? > > < > to "Entirely comfortable"; but that's the problem! >>> > > No I am not. You are under the delusion that words are pure and > perfect. Wrong. > Every word or phrase has within it multiple layers of INHERENT > meaning. Anyone watching this thread with a scintillating intellect > embedded in their jyotish chart, is baffled by your lack of ability > to see the inherent meaning I gave, which is not contradictory to the > more succinct meaning I gave. > > < > the definitions to suit your purpose and wind up with a self- > evident > > truth,>>> > > You just don't have the experience in logic to see its obvious logic. > > <> > > Yes. Thanks again. Tautology is the highest, most prized structure of > logic. I used to teach this stuff. > > < > from "entirely comfortable". > > However, where in the world do you get the premise, "entirely > > comfortable", >>> > > > Bliss is entirely comfortable, as those who have experienced it know. > > Total comfort is entirely blissful, as those who can appreciate it to > the fullest know. > > > <> planets?cuz I sure don't see them on this planet!>> > > Yes, this planet is in ignorance and self-delusion...as the masters > have stated time and time again. > > WAKE UP ! ! ! > The truth is out thereand it is bliss. > > OffWorld > > > . >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> Thankyou. (you seem to be under the delusion that a tautology is a bad thing in logic. It is actually the highest goal of logic. You're understanding of tautology needs some serious attention and time spent studying it. Come back when you have studied it for 3 weeks minimum, full time.) < because it's Bliss. >> Huh? < to "Entirely comfortable"; but that's the problem! >>> No I am not. You are under the delusion that words are pure and perfect. Wrong. Every word or phrase has within it multiple layers of INHERENT meaning. Anyone watching this thread with a scintillating intellect embedded in their jyotish chart, is baffled by your lack of ability to see the inherent meaning I gave, which is not contradictory to the more succinct meaning I gave. < the definitions to suit your purpose and wind up with a self- evident > truth,>>> You just don't have the experience in logic to see its obvious logic. <> Yes. Thanks again. Tautology is the highest, most prized structure of logic. I used to teach this stuff. < from "entirely comfortable". > However, where in the world do you get the premise, "entirely > comfortable", >>> Bliss is entirely comfortable, as those who have experienced it know. Total comfort is entirely blissful, as those who can appreciate it to the fullest know. <planets?cuz I sure don't see them on this planet!>> Yes, this planet is in ignorance and self-delusion...as the masters have stated time and time again. WAKE UP ! ! ! The truth is out thereand it is bliss. OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: Life is Bliss because it's Bliss. First you said "at home" and then changed to "Entirely comfortable"; but that's the problem! You're changing the definitions to suit your purpose and wind up with a self-evident truth, a tautology, since "Bliss" isn't that much of a stretch from "entirely comfortable". However, where in the world do you get the premise, "entirely comfortable", where are those people, on the Pleides planets?cuz I sure don't see them on this planet! In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > --There are some non-sequiturs in the paragraph below. It says "you > > are at home in that (the dynamic aspect of life). Then it > says "Being > > at home, therefore you are happy". Non-Sequitur. >>> > > > Not. > Being at home here means : "Entirely comfortable and familiar and > knowledgable about...happy therein". > > > > plenty of creatures "at home" but grossly unhappy.>> > > > That is called an "irrational assumption" right there. > > > > Then it says "Therefore life is bliss". Doesn't follow at all!.>> > > > Yes it does, because 'happiness' is a shade, or a version, of bliss. > They are not distinct, only layers of the same thing. > > > > Last, it says "all else is illusion". There's a problem here. What > > is the "all else"?? >> > > > All your illusory experience that you think you are not completely > comfortable, happy, and familiar with the universe to the point of > rarified bliss. You are living in an illusory state, since you are a > creature born, evolved in, and entirely made of, this wonderous > ocean, that we call the cosmos. You are that. And you love it !...you > just are living in another illusion for the fun of it. > > > <> > > > The ultimate tautology is tight in all directions. Taut as a > tightrope. > Walk that rope, or Fall. > > > > The conclusion " life is bliss" may be true but it's not supported > by the supposed logic of the previous statements.>>> > > > It is entirely. > It is an unavoidable conclusion of the scintillating intellect > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > > Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of > > > existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - > occurs. > > > Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and > > > propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. > > Therefore > > > you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy > in > > this > > > universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a > > species. > > > Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this > > > universe. All else is illusion. > > > > > > Therefore, life is bliss. > > > All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom T: > > > > You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her > questions > > lead > > > > one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. > > Awesome!. > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --There are some non-sequiturs in the paragraph below. It says "you > are at home in that (the dynamic aspect of life). Then it says "Being > at home, therefore you are happy". Non-Sequitur. >>> Not. Being at home here means : "Entirely comfortable and familiar and knowledgable about...happy therein". > plenty of creatures "at home" but grossly unhappy.>> That is called an "irrational assumption" right there. > Then it says "Therefore life is bliss". Doesn't follow at all!.>> Yes it does, because 'happiness' is a shade, or a version, of bliss. They are not distinct, only layers of the same thing. > Last, it says "all else is illusion". There's a problem here. What > is the "all else"?? >> All your illusory experience that you think you are not completely comfortable, happy, and familiar with the universe to the point of rarified bliss. You are living in an illusory state, since you are a creature born, evolved in, and entirely made of, this wonderous ocean, that we call the cosmos. You are that. And you love it !...you just are living in another illusion for the fun of it. <> The ultimate tautology is tight in all directions. Taut as a tightrope. Walk that rope, or Fall. > The conclusion " life is bliss" may be true but it's not supported by the supposed logic of the previous statements.>>> It is entirely. It is an unavoidable conclusion of the scintillating intellect OffWorld > > > > > > Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of > > existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. > > Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and > > propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. > Therefore > > you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in > this > > universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a > species. > > Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this > > universe. All else is illusion. > > > > Therefore, life is bliss. > > All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue. > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom T: > > > You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions > lead > > > one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. > Awesome!. > > Tom > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--There are some non-sequiturs in the paragraph below. It says "you are at home in that (the dynamic aspect of life). Then it says "Being at home, therefore you are happy". Non-Sequitur. There are plenty of creatures "at home" but grossly unhappy. Then it says "Therefore life is bliss". Doesn't follow at all!. Last, it says "all else is illusion". There's a problem here. What is the "all else"?? This is shaping up to be a tautology. The conclusion " life is bliss" may be true but it's not supported by the supposed logic of the previous statements. > > > Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of > existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. > Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and > propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Therefore > you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this > universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. > Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this > universe. All else is illusion. > > Therefore, life is bliss. > All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue. > > OffWorld > > > > > > > Tom T: > > You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions lead > > one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. Awesome!. > Tom > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Barry writes in his summary: > So have a go at it, eh? And if you are able to come > up with some statement -- any statement -- that is > true for all beings, in all periods of time, in all > contexts, and when viewed from all states of consciousness, > *then* come back and tell me how accurate > you believe the words of the supposedly enlightened > are when describing what it's like. I'll wait.>>> Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Therefore you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this universe. All else is illusion. Therefore, life is bliss. All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue. OffWorld > > Tom T: > You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions lead > one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. Awesome!. Tom >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Barry writes in his summary: > So have a go at it, eh? And if you are able to come > up with some statement -- any statement -- that is > true for all beings, in all periods of time, in all > contexts, and when viewed from all states of consciousness, > *then* come back and tell me how accurate > you believe the words of the supposedly enlightened > are when describing what it's like. I'll wait.>> Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Therefore you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this universe. All else is illusion. Therefore, life is bliss. All else is self-illusion. Untrue. OffWorld > > Tom T: > You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions lead > one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. Awesome!. Tom >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Sorry to take so long to reply. It's just a result of my job and the fifty women that I slavishly serve - they made me "not" do it - whatever that means. Card is right about why I hyphenate these plural loan words. I first saw this particular usage in Trevor Leggett's translation of Shankara's commentary on the Yoga Sutras. I have not yet found an American scholar doing the same. However, I like it because it reinforces the recognition that these Sanskrit words (read Arabic for "Houri") are provisional terms, not necessarily fit yet to be reified into English. I understand how you, as an editor, might find this mode of presentation to be contra-instinctual for a trained English reader. However, rather than just dismissing it, tell me why you might find it confusing or irritating. emptybill --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim > wrote: > > > > > > > The Houri-s sound so much better. > > > > > > OK, I can't stand it any longer. > > > > > > With plural nouns, why do you put a hyphen between the > > > word and the "s"? > > > > > > > I'm not at all sure, but in my understanding he > > does it if he thinks a word is not a genuine > > loan word from another language into English, > > but a word of another language used amongst English > > text. > > Aha! I'm sure you're right. > > For instance, if you consider the word > > 'siddhi' a loan word from Sanskrit to English, it's > > OK to write the plural as 'siddhis', but the Sanskrit > > (nominative) plural would actually be the rather awkward > > 'siddhayaH' as in > > > > te samaadhaav upasargaa(,) vyutthaane siddhayaH. > > > > But if you don't think it's a loan word (yet), > > it seems to me quite cool to write the plural > > like 'siddhi-s'. That's probably not a convention > > accepted by native English grammarians, though. > > In typeset material, such a word would be set in > italics, but the "s" would be set in roman. If all > you've got is roman characters, though, I suppose > the hyphen is a reasonable way to indicate the "s" > isn't the foreign plural form. > > However, in an informal context such as this, I'm > not sure it's really justified; it makes the > material harder to read, and there's no important > purpose served by it. > > > > > > > > For instance the Finnish word 'sauna' is, AFAIK, nowadays > > a genuine English word borrowed from Finnish, so > > it's OK to write the plural like 'saunas', but > > the Finnish (nominative) plural would be 'saunat'. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > Because of this somewhat elitist POV, numerous schools and numerous > > realizers did view Shankara as a fanatic of demon. The dvaita > master > > Madhava called Shankara "a deceitful demon who had perverted the > > teachings of the Brahma-sutra to lead souls astray." > > > > Is it perchance so, that dvaitins perceive "tattvamasi" like > "tattvam asi" and advaitins like "tat tvam asi"? > No, it ain't. According to Wiki, dvaitins read "tattvamasi" in _chaandogya_ 6.8.7: sa ya eshho.aNimaitadaatmyamida\m+ sarvaM tatsatya\m+ sa aatmaa ***tattvamasi*** shvetaketo iti bhuuya eva maa bhagavaanviGYaapayatviti tathaa somyeti hovaacha || 6\.8\.7|| like "... sa aatmaa + atattvamasi shvetaketo..." Huccome? Well, that seems to require the DN text being written like "aatmaatattvamasi". If it's written like "aatmaa tattvamasi", it's obviously impossible to interpret that to "contain" "atattvamasi". I wonder how them stoopid dvaitins "explain away" the other famous mahaavaakyas, like "ayamaatmaa brahma", "ahaM brahmaasmi", "sarvaM khalvidaM brahma". :o > sa ya eshho.aNimaitadaatmyamida\m+ sarvaM tatsatya\m+ sa > aatmaa ***tattvamasi*** shvetaketo iti bhuuya eva maa > bhagavaanviGYaapayatviti tathaa somyeti hovaacha || 6\.8\.7|| >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim wrote: > > > > > The Houri-s sound so much better. > > > > OK, I can't stand it any longer. > > > > With plural nouns, why do you put a hyphen between the > > word and the "s"? > > > > I'm not at all sure, but in my understanding he > does it if he thinks a word is not a genuine > loan word from another language into English, > but a word of another language used amongst English > text. Aha! I'm sure you're right. For instance, if you consider the word > 'siddhi' a loan word from Sanskrit to English, it's > OK to write the plural as 'siddhis', but the Sanskrit > (nominative) plural would actually be the rather awkward > 'siddhayaH' as in > > te samaadhaav upasargaa(,) vyutthaane siddhayaH. > > But if you don't think it's a loan word (yet), > it seems to me quite cool to write the plural > like 'siddhi-s'. That's probably not a convention > accepted by native English grammarians, though. In typeset material, such a word would be set in italics, but the "s" would be set in roman. If all you've got is roman characters, though, I suppose the hyphen is a reasonable way to indicate the "s" isn't the foreign plural form. However, in an informal context such as this, I'm not sure it's really justified; it makes the material harder to read, and there's no important purpose served by it. > > For instance the Finnish word 'sauna' is, AFAIK, nowadays > a genuine English word borrowed from Finnish, so > it's OK to write the plural like 'saunas', but > the Finnish (nominative) plural would be 'saunat'. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Because of this somewhat elitist POV, numerous schools and numerous > realizers did view Shankara as a fanatic of demon. The dvaita master > Madhava called Shankara "a deceitful demon who had perverted the > teachings of the Brahma-sutra to lead souls astray." > Is it perchance so, that dvaitins perceive "tattvamasi" like "tattvam asi" and advaitins like "tat tvam asi"? sa ya eshho.aNimaitadaatmyamida\m+ sarvaM tatsatya\m+ sa aatmaa ***tattvamasi*** shvetaketo iti bhuuya eva maa bhagavaanviGYaapayatviti tathaa somyeti hovaacha || 6\.8\.7||
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 23, 2007, at 7:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to > confuse me, and you're never successful. For the record, the very *definition* of paranoia. Unless of course she was confused to begin with...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 23, 2007, at 7:43 PM, billy jim wrote: OK Vaj, I'm going to enter the fray here. The way this conversation is preceding you’re going to get tired soon from the suffocating squeeze of the pythoness. (I actually mean this as a complement to Judy.) Then the conversation will attenuate into a final pair of mutual - “the pox on your house, dear”. This is not only boring - it is unilluminating. And, being a fool’s fool, I only exist for the dazzling radiance that others of real worth, like you and Judy, can shine on my miserable bug-like existence. Help me out here, Vaj - illuminate me. I’ve heard this argument from you before and I never could decide which sutra-s of Patanjali you are directing our attention toward - above all because I’m overwhelmed by your ocean-like compassion to save us from our slavish adulation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (And who is this Mr. Varma who you keep talking about?) So … let me try to restate your referenced argument in simplified form – one that even a fecal larvae like me can understand: TM practitioners, particularly brain-washed TM teachers, falsely identify their direct, unmediated experiences of utter difference between pure-consciousness (purusha) and the intellect (buddhi- sattva) as kaivalya (aloneness of pure consciousness). However, kaivalya is described by Patanjali (Pada II.25) as the disappearance of ignorance (avidya) and the consequent ceasing of the correlation (samyoga) between the seer and the seen. The experiences of TM’er are NOT kaivalya but rather are transient flashes of viveka-khyati, or the “vision-of-discernment” between purusha and prakriti. So, Vaj, is this an accurate description of your argument against TM claims vis-à-vis Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras? No, not quite, we were referring to some old comments of Tom.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to > > > confuse me, and you're never successful. > > > > For the record, the very *definition* of > > paranoia. > > > Spaeking of paranoia, I read one of my best jokes ever on Friday: > "I was walking home yesterday when this guy hammering on his roof > called me a paranoid little freak. In morse code.":-) Hehe :-) "I know I'm paranoid, but I don't understand that to be a good enough reason for people to stalk me !"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim wrote: > > > The Houri-s sound so much better. > > OK, I can't stand it any longer. > > With plural nouns, why do you put a hyphen between the > word and the "s"? > I'm not at all sure, but in my understanding he does it if he thinks a word is not a genuine loan word from another language into English, but a word of another language used amongst English text. For instance, if you consider the word 'siddhi' a loan word from Sanskrit to English, it's OK to write the plural as 'siddhis', but the Sanskrit (nominative) plural would actually be the rather awkward 'siddhayaH' as in te samaadhaav upasargaa(,) vyutthaane siddhayaH. But if you don't think it's a loan word (yet), it seems to me quite cool to write the plural like 'siddhi-s'. That's probably not a convention accepted by native English grammarians, though. For instance the Finnish word 'sauna' is, AFAIK, nowadays a genuine English word borrowed from Finnish, so it's OK to write the plural like 'saunas', but the Finnish (nominative) plural would be 'saunat'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Houri-s sound so much better. OK, I can't stand it any longer. With plural nouns, why do you put a hyphen between the word and the "s"?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Hmm. the "r" at the end must be for rishi. What else could explain such insights? I have to admit I'm hoping life in deva-land beats moping around feeling bad for humans. Angels ... mere sexless, boring slaves of yhvh - who needs them? The Houri-s sound so much better. qntmpkt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --Maybe you were a "Conqueror Worm", a genuine evolutionary hero. But see, amid the mimic rout A crawling shape intrude! A blood-red thing that writhes from out The scenic solitude! It writhes!it writhes!with mortal pangs The mimes become its food, And seraphs sob at vermin fangs In human gore imbued. Outout are the lightsout all! And, over each quivering form, The curtain, a funeral pall, Comes down with the rush of a storm, While the angels, all pallid and wan, Uprising, unveiling, affirm That the play is the tragedy, "Man," And its hero the Conqueror Worm. r - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure that I should reply to you. You must be a devil since Sin is the better part of your name - and don't tell me its Sine. I think it's a sign. > > As far as Vaj is concerned, I wouldn't want to speak for him since he is the author of his own arguments. I'm actually waiting for this clarification myself. > > And by the way - I take great pride in my lowly origins, even lower than the ordinary maggot you reference in your comment. As a former shit-eating larvae, I do in fact claim a super-rapid ascent through the evolutionary strata of complex organisms. I have done extensive past-life research into my odious prior incarnations and have found the startling truth. > > Starting from my introduction into the earth realm as a fecal larvae, I transformed into an extremely large and irritating fly, able to viciously bite large sweat-emitting mammals. This lead to my rather rapid demise from a vigorous fly-swat. Next incarnation - grain-devouring rodent, soon dispelled by suffocating poison, terribly painful but quickly liberating. After that I launched deeper into the mammalian realm as a boar, enabling me to recognize and somehow choose to identify as a predator rather than helpless prey. > > Next came a wonderfully deceptive incarnation as a jackal - the key incarnation that caused me to become human. As I remember it, I was tearing out the entrails of a large mammal we had felled. The animal wasn't dead yet and when it looked up in shock, horror and agony at me eating it while still alive, I looked into its eyes and saw "myself" - not literally but rather another desperately entombed intelligence, just like "myself", the jackal. This caused me to suddenly generate the genuine idea "oh, its just like me", and this in spite of the fact that the other animal looked nothing like me. > > That was it - birth of an idea unbound by particularity and able to appreciate something authentically generalized and universal. In other words, I recognized a "universal" - the defining characteristic of human nature according to Socrates of Athens. > > After this pivotal event, I took a quick series of human incarnations, lowly and serf-like at first but later more confident and assertive. From plebeian to patrician was just a couple of incarnations and then wham, I was reborn into 20th century Europe and then here into the new world. > > Now my jyotish chart shows that I'll be reborn into the deva realm after death, obviously because I still can't tell the difference between purusha and the three guna-s. However, I don't feel bad because I figure I'll see everybody else here on FFL in that land of bliss, except Vaj, since we've all been deceived by Mahesh except him. > > So aren't you really impressed at my rapid evolution? Maybe I should try and get promoted to a local, divinized logos like the Mormons claim (they say it is the next step). Maybe it would even beat twenty dark-eyed virgins. Hmm > > Emptybill's a goin' higher > > heh,heh > > > sinhlnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recent Activity > > 3 > New Members > > 1 > New Files > > Visit Your Group > Ads on Yahoo! > Learn more now. > Reach customers > searching for you. > > Special K Challenge > on Yahoo! Groups > Find shape-up > tips and tools. > > HDTV Support > The official Samsung > Y! Group for HDTVs > and devices. > > > > . > > Thanks, billy jim! During my first 6 weeks in the Army long ago > they used to call us "maggots". > > > > > - > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. > - Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--Maybe you were a "Conqueror Worm", a genuine evolutionary hero. But see, amid the mimic rout A crawling shape intrude! A blood-red thing that writhes from out The scenic solitude! It writhes!it writhes!with mortal pangs The mimes become its food, And seraphs sob at vermin fangs In human gore imbued. Outout are the lightsout all! And, over each quivering form, The curtain, a funeral pall, Comes down with the rush of a storm, While the angels, all pallid and wan, Uprising, unveiling, affirm That the play is the tragedy, "Man," And its hero the Conqueror Worm. r - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure that I should reply to you. You must be a devil since Sin is the better part of your name - and don't tell me its Sine. I think it's a sign. > > As far as Vaj is concerned, I wouldn't want to speak for him since he is the author of his own arguments. I'm actually waiting for this clarification myself. > > And by the way - I take great pride in my lowly origins, even lower than the ordinary maggot you reference in your comment. As a former shit-eating larvae, I do in fact claim a super-rapid ascent through the evolutionary strata of complex organisms. I have done extensive past-life research into my odious prior incarnations and have found the startling truth. > > Starting from my introduction into the earth realm as a fecal larvae, I transformed into an extremely large and irritating fly, able to viciously bite large sweat-emitting mammals. This lead to my rather rapid demise from a vigorous fly-swat. Next incarnation - grain-devouring rodent, soon dispelled by suffocating poison, terribly painful but quickly liberating. After that I launched deeper into the mammalian realm as a boar, enabling me to recognize and somehow choose to identify as a predator rather than helpless prey. > > Next came a wonderfully deceptive incarnation as a jackal - the key incarnation that caused me to become human. As I remember it, I was tearing out the entrails of a large mammal we had felled. The animal wasn't dead yet and when it looked up in shock, horror and agony at me eating it while still alive, I looked into its eyes and saw "myself" - not literally but rather another desperately entombed intelligence, just like "myself", the jackal. This caused me to suddenly generate the genuine idea "oh, its just like me", and this in spite of the fact that the other animal looked nothing like me. > > That was it - birth of an idea unbound by particularity and able to appreciate something authentically generalized and universal. In other words, I recognized a "universal" - the defining characteristic of human nature according to Socrates of Athens. > > After this pivotal event, I took a quick series of human incarnations, lowly and serf-like at first but later more confident and assertive. From plebeian to patrician was just a couple of incarnations and then wham, I was reborn into 20th century Europe and then here into the new world. > > Now my jyotish chart shows that I'll be reborn into the deva realm after death, obviously because I still can't tell the difference between purusha and the three guna-s. However, I don't feel bad because I figure I'll see everybody else here on FFL in that land of bliss, except Vaj, since we've all been deceived by Mahesh except him. > > So aren't you really impressed at my rapid evolution? Maybe I should try and get promoted to a local, divinized logos like the Mormons claim (they say it is the next step). Maybe it would even beat twenty dark-eyed virgins. Hmm > > Emptybill's a goin' higher > > heh,heh > > > sinhlnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recent Activity > > 3 > New Members > > 1 > New Files > > Visit Your Group > Ads on Yahoo! > Learn more now. > Reach customers > searching for you. > > Special K Challenge > on Yahoo! Groups > Find shape-up > tips and tools. > > HDTV Support > The official Samsung > Y! Group for HDTVs > and devices. > > > > . > > Thanks, billy jim! During my first 6 weeks in the Army long ago > they used to call us "maggots". > > > > > - > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
I'm not sure that I should reply to you. You must be a devil since Sin is the better part of your name - and don't tell me its Sine. I think it's a sign. As far as Vaj is concerned, I wouldn't want to speak for him since he is the author of his own arguments. I'm actually waiting for this clarification myself. And by the way - I take great pride in my lowly origins, even lower than the ordinary maggot you reference in your comment. As a former shit-eating larvae, I do in fact claim a super-rapid ascent through the evolutionary strata of complex organisms. I have done extensive past-life research into my odious prior incarnations and have found the startling truth. Starting from my introduction into the earth realm as a fecal larvae, I transformed into an extremely large and irritating fly, able to viciously bite large sweat-emitting mammals. This lead to my rather rapid demise from a vigorous fly-swat. Next incarnation - grain-devouring rodent, soon dispelled by suffocating poison, terribly painful but quickly liberating. After that I launched deeper into the mammalian realm as a boar, enabling me to recognize and somehow choose to identify as a predator rather than helpless prey. Next came a wonderfully deceptive incarnation as a jackal - the key incarnation that caused me to become human. As I remember it, I was tearing out the entrails of a large mammal we had felled. The animal wasn't dead yet and when it looked up in shock, horror and agony at me eating it while still alive, I looked into its eyes and saw "myself" - not literally but rather another desperately entombed intelligence, just like "myself", the jackal. This caused me to suddenly generate the genuine idea "oh, its just like me", and this in spite of the fact that the other animal looked nothing like me. That was it - birth of an idea unbound by particularity and able to appreciate something authentically generalized and universal. In other words, I recognized a "universal" - the defining characteristic of human nature according to Socrates of Athens. After this pivotal event, I took a quick series of human incarnations, lowly and serf-like at first but later more confident and assertive. From plebeian to patrician was just a couple of incarnations and then wham, I was reborn into 20th century Europe and then here into the new world. Now my jyotish chart shows that I'll be reborn into the deva realm after death, obviously because I still can't tell the difference between purusha and the three guna-s. However, I don't feel bad because I figure I'll see everybody else here on FFL in that land of bliss, except Vaj, since we've all been deceived by Mahesh except him. So aren't you really impressed at my rapid evolution? Maybe I should try and get promoted to a local, divinized logos like the Mormons claim (they say it is the next step). Maybe it would even beat twenty dark-eyed virgins. Hmm Emptybill's a goin' higher heh,heh sinhlnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Recent Activity 3 New Members 1 New Files Visit Your Group Ads on Yahoo! Learn more now. Reach customers searching for you. Special K Challenge on Yahoo! Groups Find shape-up tips and tools. HDTV Support The official Samsung Y! Group for HDTVs and devices. . Thanks, billy jim! During my first 6 weeks in the Army long ago they used to call us "maggots". - Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to > > confuse me, and you're never successful. > > For the record, the very *definition* of > paranoia. > Spaeking of paranoia, I read one of my best jokes ever on Friday: "I was walking home yesterday when this guy hammering on his roof called me a paranoid little freak. In morse code.":-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So let me try to restate your referenced argument in simplified form one that even a fecal larvae like me can understand: FWIW, Vaj's argument is with Tom and with Shearer's translation of the Yoga Sutras, not with anything in my original post (the one you liked); Vaj completely missed the *context* of Tom's post (which I had quoted in my post). His slam at the "many falsehoods" that were supposedly in my post was pure obfuscation, as was his subsequent argument. (The sutra in question is the last one in chapter 3 of the Yoga Sutras.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to > > confuse me, and you're never successful. > > For the record, the very *definition* of > paranoia. Hard to get more off-target than that, Barry. Have some coffee, see if it clears your mind a bit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- Thanks, billy jim! During my first 6 weeks in the Army long ago they used to call us "maggots". Let me get this straight: are you saying that Vaj is saying that MMY's TM can only facilitate people getting into CC, and not Unity? Is that a concise summary? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > OK Vaj, I'm going to enter the fray here. > > The way this conversation is preceding you're going to get tired soon from the suffocating squeeze of the pythoness. (I actually mean this as a complement to Judy.) Then the conversation will attenuate into a final pair of mutual - "the pox on your house, dear". This is not only boring - it is unilluminating. And, being a fool's fool, I only exist for the dazzling radiance that others of real worth, like you and Judy, can shine on my miserable bug-like existence. > > Help me out here, Vaj - illuminate me. I've heard this argument from you before and I never could decide which sutra-s of Patanjali you are directing our attention toward - above all because I'm overwhelmed by your ocean-like compassion to save us from our slavish adulation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (And who is this Mr. Varma who you keep talking about?) > > So let me try to restate your referenced argument in simplified form one that even a fecal larvae like me can understand: > > TM practitioners, particularly brain-washed TM teachers, falsely identify their direct, unmediated experiences of utter difference between pure-consciousness (purusha) and the intellect (buddhi- sattva) as kaivalya (aloneness of pure consciousness). > > However, kaivalya is described by Patanjali (Pada II.25) as the disappearance of ignorance (avidya) and the consequent ceasing of the correlation (samyoga) between the seer and the seen. > > The experiences of TM'er are NOT kaivalya but rather are transient flashes of viveka-khyati, or the "vision-of-discernment" between purusha and prakriti. > > So, Vaj, is this an accurate description of your argument against TM claims vis-à-vis Patanjali's Yoga Sutras? > > If so then please help me out by pointing which of Patanjali's sutras you are referencing as positive proof that TM'ers misidentify the "vision of discernment" with the "Aloneness of seeing" (Kaivalya). > > If not, then also help me out by restating your argument so you can correct my misunderstanding. Please do so in a form that likewise tags your references to each of the relevant Sutra-s of my good friend, Maharishi Patanjali and please don't call him Mr. Naga. > > > The shit-eating worm > Emptybill > > > whatever whatever > > > > - > Don't let your dream ride pass you by.Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
OK Vaj, I'm going to enter the fray here. The way this conversation is preceding youre going to get tired soon from the suffocating squeeze of the pythoness. (I actually mean this as a complement to Judy.) Then the conversation will attenuate into a final pair of mutual - the pox on your house, dear. This is not only boring - it is unilluminating. And, being a fools fool, I only exist for the dazzling radiance that others of real worth, like you and Judy, can shine on my miserable bug-like existence. Help me out here, Vaj - illuminate me. Ive heard this argument from you before and I never could decide which sutra-s of Patanjali you are directing our attention toward - above all because Im overwhelmed by your ocean-like compassion to save us from our slavish adulation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (And who is this Mr. Varma who you keep talking about?) So let me try to restate your referenced argument in simplified form one that even a fecal larvae like me can understand: TM practitioners, particularly brain-washed TM teachers, falsely identify their direct, unmediated experiences of utter difference between pure-consciousness (purusha) and the intellect (buddhi-sattva) as kaivalya (aloneness of pure consciousness). However, kaivalya is described by Patanjali (Pada II.25) as the disappearance of ignorance (avidya) and the consequent ceasing of the correlation (samyoga) between the seer and the seen. The experiences of TMer are NOT kaivalya but rather are transient flashes of viveka-khyati, or the vision-of-discernment between purusha and prakriti. So, Vaj, is this an accurate description of your argument against TM claims vis-à-vis Patanjalis Yoga Sutras? If so then please help me out by pointing which of Patanjalis sutras you are referencing as positive proof that TMers misidentify the vision of discernment with the Aloneness of seeing (Kaivalya). If not, then also help me out by restating your argument so you can correct my misunderstanding. Please do so in a form that likewise tags your references to each of the relevant Sutra-s of my good friend, Maharishi Patanjali and please dont call him Mr. Naga. The shit-eating worm Emptybill whatever whatever - Don't let your dream ride pass you by.Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to > confuse me, and you're never successful. For the record, the very *definition* of paranoia.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 2:20 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear. > > > > Please review my previous posts, poopsie. The > > sutra Tom quoted refers to "kaivalya," final > > liberation. > > Ah, I see where you are confused! Yes it does use that word Judy...in > regards to pada 3. The YS has 4 padas though Judy. You must've missed > the context. Oops! Uh, no, no confusion here, Vaj. Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to confuse me, and you're never successful. > Don't they still teach editors about context or I am just old- fashioned? (Actually, you don't have to be an editor to know about the importance of context.) An understanding of context is particularly helpful when someone is engaging in obfuscation by invoking irrelevant context.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 23, 2007, at 2:20 PM, authfriend wrote: > Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear. Please review my previous posts, poopsie. The sutra Tom quoted refers to "kaivalya," final liberation. Ah, I see where you are confused! Yes it does use that word Judy...in regards to pada 3. The YS has 4 padas though Judy. You must've missed the context. Oops! Don't they still teach editors about context or I am just old-fashioned?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:40 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > > > > > > said words became enlightenment through the > > > > > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > > > > > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > > > > > > > > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom > > > > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted > > > > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of > > > > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an > > > > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la > > > > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that > > > > > system. > > > > > > > > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this > > > > instance about its being "final realization." He > > > > was making a different point. > > > > > > Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is > > > "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. > > > Viveka-khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi > > > (a stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a > > > lineal realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual > > > to see TMer's express false views. > > > > This is just a string of non sequiturs, Vaj. > > Tom didn't say anything about "viveka-khyati" > > either. > > Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear. Please review my previous posts, poopsie. The sutra Tom quoted refers to "kaivalya," final liberation. > > Nothing you've said has any relevance to what > > Tom said or what I said. It's just your usual > > attempt at misdirection to get in another slam > > at MMY. > > No my dear, it's an attempt to clarify from an extremely > misleading statement. No, Vaj. No, it's not. Everything you've said in this thread has been an attempt to obfuscate.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:40 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > > > > said words became enlightenment through the > > > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > > > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > > > > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom > > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted > > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of > > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an > > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la > > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that > > > system. > > > > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this > > instance about its being "final realization." He > > was making a different point. > > Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is > "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. > Viveka-khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi > (a stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a > lineal realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual > to see TMer's express false views. This is just a string of non sequiturs, Vaj. Tom didn't say anything about "viveka-khyati" either. Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear. Nothing you've said has any relevance to what Tom said or what I said. It's just your usual attempt at misdirection to get in another slam at MMY. No my dear, it's an attempt to clarify from an extremely misleading statement. Sorry, I guess you missed that. Plus which, I rather doubt you're a "lineal realizer," so by your own criterion, you aren't in a position to explain the Yoga Sutras. Well it does help to be trained correctly. ;-) > > In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given > > that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting > > is "kaivalya," final liberation. > > > > > He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list, > > > despite this fact being brought to his attention. > > > > Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out > > your error. > > He's always welcome to try. Translation: Ooops! Actual translation: "bring it on Tom!"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 6:29 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > > > Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta > > > was in Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. > > > > > > Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, > > > unleaved observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even > > > Vaj should be able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen > > > that yet. > > > > Well, I think if we accept the Mahesh Varma map of awakening and > > stories we were told, and rely on that alone, we'd find it easy to > > accept Judy's post, at least in part. > > Perhaps you should actually read the post you're > commenting on. As it happens, it had nothing to do > with MMY's "map of awakening," nor did it depend > on any TM "stories." > > However, being familiar with > > the Patanjali system, as applied in the Shankaracharya tradition, > > I could not agree with a number of falsehoods. > > > > I've already commented on a couple of these in other posts. > > You pointed out one "falsehood," about which it > appears you were mistaken. > > Please take the time now to point out all the other > "falsehoods" in my post with which you could not agree, > so we can determine whether these are errors as well. > It took me a minute, but Vaj has slipped into his troll guise again.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > > > > said words became enlightenment through the > > > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > > > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > > > > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom > > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted > > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of > > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an > > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la > > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that > > > system. > > > > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this > > instance about its being "final realization." He > > was making a different point. > > Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is > "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. Viveka- > khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi (a > stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a lineal > realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual to see > TMer's express false views. > Brahman is the end result, or the beginning of actual Self Realization, nor have I heard any differently from Maharishi. You have misinterpreted the TM message. I have heard TMers consistently correct about this. You appear to be trolling here, Vaj.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > > > > said words became enlightenment through the > > > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > > > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > > > > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom > > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted > > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of > > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an > > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la > > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that > > > system. > > > > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this > > instance about its being "final realization." He > > was making a different point. > > Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is > "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. > Viveka-khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi > (a stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a > lineal realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual > to see TMer's express false views. This is just a string of non sequiturs, Vaj. Tom didn't say anything about "viveka-khyati" either. Nothing you've said has any relevance to what Tom said or what I said. It's just your usual attempt at misdirection to get in another slam at MMY. Plus which, I rather doubt you're a "lineal realizer," so by your own criterion, you aren't in a position to explain the Yoga Sutras. > > In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given > > that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting > > is "kaivalya," final liberation. > > > > > He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list, > > > despite this fact being brought to his attention. > > > > Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out > > your error. > > He's always welcome to try. Translation: Ooops!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > > said words became enlightenment through the > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that > system. Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this instance about its being "final realization." He was making a different point. Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. Viveka- khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi (a stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a lineal realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual to see TMer's express false views. In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting is "kaivalya," final liberation. > He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list, > despite this fact being brought to his attention. Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out your error. He's always welcome to try.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 6:29 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta > > was in Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. > > > > Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, > > unleaved observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even > > Vaj should be able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen > > that yet. > > Well, I think if we accept the Mahesh Varma map of awakening and > stories we were told, and rely on that alone, we'd find it easy to > accept Judy's post, at least in part. Perhaps you should actually read the post you're commenting on. As it happens, it had nothing to do with MMY's "map of awakening," nor did it depend on any TM "stories." However, being familiar with > the Patanjali system, as applied in the Shankaracharya tradition, > I could not agree with a number of falsehoods. > > I've already commented on a couple of these in other posts. You pointed out one "falsehood," about which it appears you were mistaken. Please take the time now to point out all the other "falsehoods" in my post with which you could not agree, so we can determine whether these are errors as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > > said words became enlightenment through the > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that > system. Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this instance about its being "final realization." He was making a different point. In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting is "kaivalya," final liberation. > He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list, > despite this fact being brought to his attention. Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out your error.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 6:29 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in > > Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. > > > > Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved > > observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be > > able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. > > Well, I think if we accept the Mahesh Varma map of awakening and > stories we were told, and rely on that alone, we'd find it easy to > accept Judy's post, at least in part. However, being familiar with > the Patanjali system, as applied in the Shankaracharya tradition, I > could not agree with a number of falsehoods. > > I've already commented on a couple of these in other posts. > "the Mahesh Varma map of awakening"? What map? When you are awake, you are awake, and when you are asleep you are asleep. Mahesh or whatever we call him has never said any differently. There is no map, per se.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 22, 2007, at 6:29 PM, emptybill wrote: Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. Well, I think if we accept the Mahesh Varma map of awakening and stories we were told, and rely on that alone, we'd find it easy to accept Judy's post, at least in part. However, being familiar with the Patanjali system, as applied in the Shankaracharya tradition, I could not agree with a number of falsehoods. I've already commented on a couple of these in other posts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote: Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he said words became enlightenment through the discrimination of the intellect, "when the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of Patanjali as "viveka- khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that system. He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list, despite this fact being brought to his attention.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Thanks, Marek and emptybill, for your kind comments. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good observation. I found Judy's analysis very helpful. Thanks. > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > > Hey Judy, > > > > Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in > > Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. > > > > Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved > > observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be > > able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. > > > > Good job. Hope more folks around here can pick up on it. > > > > Emptybill > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > >> > > > Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not > > > Patanjali. > > > > > > In any case, a penchant for debate about the > > > validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies > > > labeling Shankara as a "religious fanatic." > > > Such a label is a function of modern Western > > > culture in which the nature and role of > > > religion are very different from what they > > > were in Shankara's culture: essentially, > > > religion *was* the culture, not a subset of > > > it. There was no such thing as not being > > > religious. > > > > > > Moreover, there was no clear distinction > > > between religion and philosophy, or > > > metaphysics. > > > > > > Furthermore, debate of the kind in which > > > Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that > > > culture, much as debate is a tradition in > > > Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To > > > call Shankara a "religious fanatic" because > > > he engaged in debate about the superiority > > > of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates > > > for office in the West "political fanatics" > > > because they engage in debates about the > > > superiority of their policies. > > > > > > > > > TM "springs from" (i.e., MMY's teaching is > > > based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the > > > former in terms of practice and experiences > > > of consciousness, the latter in terms of > > > metaphysics. > > > > > >> Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in > > > debate, obviously, without *opponents* from > > > other metaphysical traditions who were trying > > > to prove *their* tradition represented truth, > > > and whose followers believed every word their > > > teachers spoke was gospel. > > > > > > That's what adherents of most philosophies > > > or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. > > > TM's insistence on the correctness of its > > > metaphysics could have come from any one of > > > the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, > > > and many others besides. > > > > > > Bottom line: There's no unique linkage > > > between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and > > > Shankara's penchant for debate. > > > > > > > > > I don't believe anyone here suggested they > > > were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, > > > after all (and, incidentally, a principle > > > Shankara was very insistent on). > > > > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > > > said words became enlightenment through the > > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > > > > > That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not > > > Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work > > > (at least in the West) is titled "The Crest > > > Jewel of Discrimination." > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Good observation. I found Judy's analysis very helpful. Thanks. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Judy, > > Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in > Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. > > Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved > observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be > able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. > > Good job. Hope more folks around here can pick up on it. > > Emptybill > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > >> > > Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not > > Patanjali. > > > > In any case, a penchant for debate about the > > validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies > > labeling Shankara as a "religious fanatic." > > Such a label is a function of modern Western > > culture in which the nature and role of > > religion are very different from what they > > were in Shankara's culture: essentially, > > religion *was* the culture, not a subset of > > it. There was no such thing as not being > > religious. > > > > Moreover, there was no clear distinction > > between religion and philosophy, or > > metaphysics. > > > > Furthermore, debate of the kind in which > > Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that > > culture, much as debate is a tradition in > > Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To > > call Shankara a "religious fanatic" because > > he engaged in debate about the superiority > > of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates > > for office in the West "political fanatics" > > because they engage in debates about the > > superiority of their policies. > > > > > > TM "springs from" (i.e., MMY's teaching is > > based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the > > former in terms of practice and experiences > > of consciousness, the latter in terms of > > metaphysics. > > > >> Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in > > debate, obviously, without *opponents* from > > other metaphysical traditions who were trying > > to prove *their* tradition represented truth, > > and whose followers believed every word their > > teachers spoke was gospel. > > > > That's what adherents of most philosophies > > or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. > > TM's insistence on the correctness of its > > metaphysics could have come from any one of > > the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, > > and many others besides. > > > > Bottom line: There's no unique linkage > > between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and > > Shankara's penchant for debate. > > > > > > I don't believe anyone here suggested they > > were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, > > after all (and, incidentally, a principle > > Shankara was very insistent on). > > > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > > said words became enlightenment through the > > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > > > That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not > > Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work > > (at least in the West) is titled "The Crest > > Jewel of Discrimination." > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Hey Judy, Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. Good job. Hope more folks around here can pick up on it. Emptybill --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not > Patanjali. > > In any case, a penchant for debate about the > validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies > labeling Shankara as a "religious fanatic." > Such a label is a function of modern Western > culture in which the nature and role of > religion are very different from what they > were in Shankara's culture: essentially, > religion *was* the culture, not a subset of > it. There was no such thing as not being > religious. > > Moreover, there was no clear distinction > between religion and philosophy, or > metaphysics. > > Furthermore, debate of the kind in which > Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that > culture, much as debate is a tradition in > Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To > call Shankara a "religious fanatic" because > he engaged in debate about the superiority > of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates > for office in the West "political fanatics" > because they engage in debates about the > superiority of their policies. > > > TM "springs from" (i.e., MMY's teaching is > based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the > former in terms of practice and experiences > of consciousness, the latter in terms of > metaphysics. > >> Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in > debate, obviously, without *opponents* from > other metaphysical traditions who were trying > to prove *their* tradition represented truth, > and whose followers believed every word their > teachers spoke was gospel. > > That's what adherents of most philosophies > or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. > TM's insistence on the correctness of its > metaphysics could have come from any one of > the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, > and many others besides. > > Bottom line: There's no unique linkage > between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and > Shankara's penchant for debate. > > > I don't believe anyone here suggested they > were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, > after all (and, incidentally, a principle > Shankara was very insistent on). > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > said words became enlightenment through the > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not > Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work > (at least in the West) is titled "The Crest > Jewel of Discrimination." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > > I think that what may be going on is that a number > > > of people who paid their dues in the TM movement > > > don't realize how heavily they have been influenced > > > by Patanjali and his hangups. He may have *been* > > > enlightened. But he was also a Class A religious > > > fanatic. Given the politics of his day, he lobbied > > > heavily to "prove" Hinduism superior to any other > > > "competing" religions, and also to "prove" his > > > particular sect of it superior to all others. He > > > traveled around challenging others to verbal "duels" > > > to "prove" such things. > > > > Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not > > Patanjali. > > Indeed I did. Thank you for the correction. > > > In any case, a penchant for debate about the > > validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies > > labeling Shankara as a "religious fanatic." > > You say tomato, I say tomato... You say tomato, I say kiwi fruit. As I pointed out, given the culture of Shankara's day, it's like calling candidates for public office in the West "political fanatics" because they're constantly debating about policy. Makes no sense, in other words.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > I think that what may be going on is that a number > > of people who paid their dues in the TM movement > > don't realize how heavily they have been influenced > > by Patanjali and his hangups. He may have *been* > > enlightened. But he was also a Class A religious > > fanatic. Given the politics of his day, he lobbied > > heavily to "prove" Hinduism superior to any other > > "competing" religions, and also to "prove" his > > particular sect of it superior to all others. He > > traveled around challenging others to verbal "duels" > > to "prove" such things. > > Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not > Patanjali. Indeed I did. Thank you for the correction. > In any case, a penchant for debate about the > validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies > labeling Shankara as a "religious fanatic." You say tomato, I say tomato...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that what may be going on is that a number > of people who paid their dues in the TM movement > don't realize how heavily they have been influenced > by Patanjali and his hangups. He may have *been* > enlightened. But he was also a Class A religious > fanatic. Given the politics of his day, he lobbied > heavily to "prove" Hinduism superior to any other > "competing" religions, and also to "prove" his > particular sect of it superior to all others. He > traveled around challenging others to verbal "duels" > to "prove" such things. Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not Patanjali. In any case, a penchant for debate about the validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies labeling Shankara as a "religious fanatic." Such a label is a function of modern Western culture in which the nature and role of religion are very different from what they were in Shankara's culture: essentially, religion *was* the culture, not a subset of it. There was no such thing as not being religious. Moreover, there was no clear distinction between religion and philosophy, or metaphysics. Furthermore, debate of the kind in which Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that culture, much as debate is a tradition in Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To call Shankara a "religious fanatic" because he engaged in debate about the superiority of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates for office in the West "political fanatics" because they engage in debates about the superiority of their policies. > In my opinion, that is one of the major reasons that > TMers tend to believe that the descriptions they have > been given of higher states of consciousness are > accurate, or that such descriptions *can* be accurate. > TM springs very much from the Patanjali tradition, TM "springs from" (i.e., MMY's teaching is based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the former in terms of practice and experiences of consciousness, the latter in terms of metaphysics. > with its hangups about being "best," and about having > every word that the teacher utters be believed as > gospel, and as if it represents "truth." Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in debate, obviously, without *opponents* from other metaphysical traditions who were trying to prove *their* tradition represented truth, and whose followers believed every word their teachers spoke was gospel. That's what adherents of most philosophies or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. TM's insistence on the correctness of its metaphysics could have come from any one of the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, and many others besides. Bottom line: There's no unique linkage between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and Shankara's penchant for debate. > I honestly believe that NO words attempting to > describe enlightenment are true. The most that they > can *ever* be is someone trying to give a rough > approximation of an impression of what it's all > about. The map is *not* the territory. The words > used to describe enlightenment are *not* enlight- > enment. I don't believe anyone here suggested they were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, after all (and, incidentally, a principle Shankara was very insistent on). Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he said words became enlightenment through the discrimination of the intellect, "when the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work (at least in the West) is titled "The Crest Jewel of Discrimination."
