Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Sorry about the confusion. At the risk of getting banned from posting to the group and just for the record, I found your name on Facebook and so I posted a friend's request, but I never received a reply. Is it alright if we call you "Curtis"? Thanks. http://tinyurl.com/pdtuus3 http://tinyurl.com/pdtuus3 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : "You are a malevolent person to me. I don't want you to ever refer to me by any name here. You and I have nothing to discuss ever." ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Is it alright with you if I call you "curtisdeltablues", since that seems to be your real professional name AND your alias for social media? Thanks. Richard, It is not my professional name. It is a name I use nowhere else but on this site to avoid people linking my work with this site. If you use either my birth name or my actual professional name on this site I will do everything I can to get you banned forever. I am confident it will be an easy sell. When you used my full real name last time I asked you to do the decent thing and stop. Instead you doubled down and began posting every instance where my name came up including when I first posted on Alt TM many many years ago before I realized the implications of using my real name on such a site. Because you reposted it here I had waste my time and Rick's to delete the mess you caused Reposting my name as a recent post was causing the search engines to link my job to this site. You are a malevolent person to me. I don't want you to ever refer to me by any name here. You and I have nothing to discuss ever. Quoting "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>: Doug, thanks for taking the time to fully explain your new role here. I am certainly more comfortable interacting with an actual person rather than an act so this change is welcome. I will intersperse my comments below. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : CDB, I am glad you are back and I hope I can lend you as well as some others who would return some protection of trust and safety here to write more freely. The railroading of you by invasion of privacy was one of the more infamous times of abuse on FFL. That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Me:I appreciate your saying that now Doug. I only cared when it became a campaign to publish my name with old posts because at that time I was being evaluated by two national arts organizations and I know they were searching on my real name to learn about my online presence. Although the views I express here are just a secular view point on spiritual claims and I am proud of this work, the craziness that it often invokes might lead someone to declare guilt by association. I also do not want schools to be confused between my adult communications here and what I might teach in schools. D: Folks are now making a lot of assumptions about my feelings about content. I had long interviews with Rick about this in coming in to the job of FFL CEO. However, my coming in to the FFL CEO [Chief Enforcement Officer] of yahoo's groups-guidelines is not about content but is about the personalization of unkindness that has become cultural on FFL, like the unkindness you experienced. Me: I am not sure I can go along with conflating purposeful personal identity outing to hurt someone in the real world with "unkindness." It minimizes the intent to actually harm. I couldn't care less about people writing unkind things about me. I just don't want my full legal name published in an attempt to link my writing on this site with the rest of my work with the public. Personally I felt as though the instigators of this behavior all went to their own group so as far as I am concerned the problem is solved with them being gone. Their drive-bys have only reinforced this view. I will cop to making assumptions about your feelings about content. I have been confused by your actual views verses your Buck persona for a few years now. D: Generally going forward now, folks should expect that their posts will be summarily deleted where unkindness crosses in to violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. The guidelines are really quite simple and the many sophist-icated and several of our professional writers here can take the time for self-restraint before they may push their send button to FFL. Writing more generally, soon I am going to start following Rick's lead on this and start to de
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Is it alright with you if I call you "curtisdeltablues", since that seems to be your real professional name AND your alias for social media? Thanks. Richard, It is not my professional name. It is a name I use nowhere else but on this site to avoid people linking my work with this site. If you use either my birth name or my actual professional name on this site I will do everything I can to get you banned forever. I am confident it will be an easy sell. When you used my full real name last time I asked you to do the decent thing and stop. Instead you doubled down and began posting every instance where my name came up including when I first posted on Alt TM many many years ago before I realized the implications of using my real name on such a site. Because you reposted it here I had waste my time and Rick's to delete the mess you caused Reposting my name as a recent post was causing the search engines to link my job to this site. You are a malevolent person to me. I don't want you to ever refer to me by any name here. You and I have nothing to discuss ever. Quoting "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>: Doug, thanks for taking the time to fully explain your new role here. I am certainly more comfortable interacting with an actual person rather than an act so this change is welcome. I will intersperse my comments below. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : CDB, I am glad you are back and I hope I can lend you as well as some others who would return some protection of trust and safety here to write more freely. The railroading of you by invasion of privacy was one of the more infamous times of abuse on FFL. That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Me:I appreciate your saying that now Doug. I only cared when it became a campaign to publish my name with old posts because at that time I was being evaluated by two national arts organizations and I know they were searching on my real name to learn about my online presence. Although the views I express here are just a secular view point on spiritual claims and I am proud of this work, the craziness that it often invokes might lead someone to declare guilt by association. I also do not want schools to be confused between my adult communications here and what I might teach in schools. D: Folks are now making a lot of assumptions about my feelings about content. I had long interviews with Rick about this in coming in to the job of FFL CEO. However, my coming in to the FFL CEO [Chief Enforcement Officer] of yahoo's groups-guidelines is not about content but is about the personalization of unkindness that has become cultural on FFL, like the unkindness you experienced. Me: I am not sure I can go along with conflating purposeful personal identity outing to hurt someone in the real world with "unkindness." It minimizes the intent to actually harm. I couldn't care less about people writing unkind things about me. I just don't want my full legal name published in an attempt to link my writing on this site with the rest of my work with the public. Personally I felt as though the instigators of this behavior all went to their own group so as far as I am concerned the problem is solved with them being gone. Their drive-bys have only reinforced this view. I will cop to making assumptions about your feelings about content. I have been confused by your actual views verses your Buck persona for a few years now. D: Generally going forward now, folks should expect that their posts will be summarily deleted where unkindness crosses in to violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. The guidelines are really quite simple and the many sophist-icated and several of our professional writers here can take the time for self-restraint before they may push their send button to FFL. Writing more generally, soon I am going to start following Rick's lead on this and start to delete posts or more made to the list without warning where the invective in writing is personalized. Yes it is fine to comment, deal with and thoughtfully consider content but if folks are having arguments that are personal they should just take themselves offline and spare FFL. Going forward, personalized name-calling that is degrading, disrespectful or humiliating will quickly be seen to become abuse on FFL. Read through the yahoo-groups guidelines and reflect. Where it is at all evide
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Thanks for all the information. I apologize for ever calling you "authorfriend" - I didn't realize that you preferred your real name, "Judy". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
/Is it alright with you if I call you "curtisdeltablues", since that seems to be your real professional name AND your alias for social media? Thanks./ Quoting "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" : Doug, thanks for taking the time to fully explain your new role here. I am certainly more comfortable interacting with an actual person rather than an act so this change is welcome. I will intersperse my comments below. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : CDB, I am glad you are back and I hope I can lend you as well as some others who would return some protection of trust and safety here to write more freely. The railroading of you by invasion of privacy was one of the more infamous times of abuse on FFL. That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Me:I appreciate your saying that now Doug. I only cared when it became a campaign to publish my name with old posts because at that time I was being evaluated by two national arts organizations and I know they were searching on my real name to learn about my online presence. Although the views I express here are just a secular view point on spiritual claims and I am proud of this work, the craziness that it often invokes might lead someone to declare guilt by association. I also do not want schools to be confused between my adult communications here and what I might teach in schools. D: Folks are now making a lot of assumptions about my feelings about content. I had long interviews with Rick about this in coming in to the job of FFL CEO. However, my coming in to the FFL CEO [Chief Enforcement Officer] of yahoo's groups-guidelines is not about content but is about the personalization of unkindness that has become cultural on FFL, like the unkindness you experienced. Me: I am not sure I can go along with conflating purposeful personal identity outing to hurt someone in the real world with "unkindness." It minimizes the intent to actually harm. I couldn't care less about people writing unkind things about me. I just don't want my full legal name published in an attempt to link my writing on this site with the rest of my work with the public. Personally I felt as though the instigators of this behavior all went to their own group so as far as I am concerned the problem is solved with them being gone. Their drive-bys have only reinforced this view. I will cop to making assumptions about your feelings about content. I have been confused by your actual views verses your Buck persona for a few years now. D: Generally going forward now, folks should expect that their posts will be summarily deleted where unkindness crosses in to violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. The guidelines are really quite simple and the many sophist-icated and several of our professional writers here can take the time for self-restraint before they may push their send button to FFL. Writing more generally, soon I am going to start following Rick's lead on this and start to delete posts or more made to the list without warning where the invective in writing is personalized. Yes it is fine to comment, deal with and thoughtfully consider content but if folks are having arguments that are personal they should just take themselves offline and spare FFL. Going forward, personalized name-calling that is degrading, disrespectful or humiliating will quickly be seen to become abuse on FFL. Read through the yahoo-groups guidelines and reflect. Where it is at all evident just expect to be moderated one way or another by any of the moderators without explanation. Me: Here we may disagree about the clarity of the Yahoo guidelines. They were probably written by lawyers to keep them out of lawsuits and they have not defined terms well enough to even be called guidelines for writing behavior. They basically are saying "Peace out, you decide what is unkind." And now that person who will be interpreting is you. It is what you have wanted for a long time so I hope it lives up to your expectations. D: Generally, I do not expect to spend much time editing at all on this or discussing this, particularly with trolls at all. Take the time to read over the yahoo-groups guidelines and write accordingly. Error well on the side of kindness and you will be well within the yahoo-groups guidelines and fine. Me: I don't expect to have any trouble with the guidelines since personal atta
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
/Thanks for the clarification. I am sorry I ever called you "Buck". It sounds complicated, so you can just call me "troll" for from now on - eveyone will know who you mean, right? LoL!/ Quoting "dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" : CDB, I am glad you are back and I hope I can lend you as well as some others who would return some protection of trust and safety here to write more freely. The railroading of you by invasion of privacy was one of the more infamous times of abuse on FFL. That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Folks are now making a lot of assumptions about my feelings about content. I had long interviews with Rick about this in coming in to the job of FFL CEO. However, my coming in to the FFL CEO [Chief Enforcement Officer] of yahoo's groups-guidelines is not about content but is about the personalization of unkindness that has become cultural on FFL, like the unkindness you experienced. Generally going forward now, folks should expect that their posts will be summarily deleted where unkindness crosses in to violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. The guidelines are really quite simple and the many sophist-icated and several of our professional writers here can take the time for self-restraint before they may push their send button to FFL. Writing more generally, soon I am going to start following Rick's lead on this and start to delete posts or more made to the list without warning where the invective in writing is personalized. Yes it is fine to comment, deal with and thoughtfully consider content but if folks are having arguments that are personal they should just take themselves offline and spare FFL. Going forward, personalized name-calling that is degrading, disrespectful or humiliating will quickly be seen to become abuse on FFL. Read through the yahoo-groups guidelines and reflect. Where it is at all evident just expect to be moderated one way or another by any of the moderators without explanation. Generally, I do not expect to spend much time editing at all on this or discussing this, particularly with trolls at all. Take the time to read over the yahoo-groups guidelines and write accordingly. Error well on the side of kindness and you will be well within the yahoo-groups guidelines and fine. I appreciate and understand that some lot of folks here spend a lot of their life energy and time composing things to post on FFL. Going forward now, self-regulate yourselves according to the yahoo guidelines error-ing well on the side of kindness and save yourself your time invested in writing. Having to delete posts is a terrible waste of your time and my time as well to have to do it. CDB, I am glad you are back. -JaiGuruYou P.S., The Yahoo-groups Guidelines: https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm # Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality, signaled by a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show ..and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the show strayed irreparably from its original premise. ..The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise or creative effort's evolution declines. # ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Thanks Judy, I had not seen that and it does answer some of my concerns about Rick's intentions as well as supports your view that it is OK to use Doug's real name officially. Much appreciated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here a
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
/Just don't call me "Shirley" ever again. LoL!/ Quoting "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" : "When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here." ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In Fairfi
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
/Thanks for all the comments. You can call me Richard, or Dick, or Willytex, or anything else you want to call me - I don't care. LoL!/ Quoting "authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected i
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Excellent distinctions! I think I could tighten up a bit in my own use of the term. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote (to Curtis) : That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Doug, ad hominem is not a meme, it is an informal logical fallacy in which a personal characteristic or action or situation a person has or is in is taken as proof his/her argument is false. 'Ad hominem' means 'to the man', instead of refuting a logical argument or position directly, one diverts attention to the person who made the argument one does not believe or like. An ad hominem is not necessarily a personal attack although it could be. It's primary function is to act as a diversion to what the real discussion is about while seeming to be a point in the argument for a particular idea or line of reasoning. Extremely common in politics. A meme is 'an idea, behaviour, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture' and has little to do with ad hominem as a logical error. If I said regarding this subject here 'Doug cannot understand what 'ad hominem' means because he is a farmer', that would be an example of ad hominem. If I said 'Doug appears to be unaware of the definition of 'ad hominem', that would not be be ad hominem, it would just be an opinion I expressed, because it is not a reasoned argument about anything. A direct personal attack might also not be ad hominem either if it is not being used to refute the other person's position on a subject. It would just be personal invective. Saying something like 'You are so and so you $&@#$', is not ad hominem. Because Curtis studied philosophy, he would probably be the best person here to delineate these points. Now that last statement is called pro hominem, the opposite of ad hominem. That he studied philosophy is no guarantee that he would know, even though I think he does know and better than me. Here are some more samples of ad hominem. (from another website) A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty. A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.” Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs. Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _.” Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.” Attacking someone’s own sexual orientation in arguing about the right of LGBT individuals to marry such as “The only reason you could possibly be in favor of this is because you are not being honest about your own sexuality.” Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.” Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.” Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.” Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.” Use of marital status to invalidate an opinion of someone of a different status, e.g., “How can you make a decision about someone having marital problems if you’ve never been married yourself?” Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.” Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?” Stating that the ethnicity of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Doug, thanks for taking the time to fully explain your new role here. I am certainly more comfortable interacting with an actual person rather than an act so this change is welcome. I will intersperse my comments below. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : CDB, I am glad you are back and I hope I can lend you as well as some others who would return some protection of trust and safety here to write more freely. The railroading of you by invasion of privacy was one of the more infamous times of abuse on FFL. That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Me:I appreciate your saying that now Doug. I only cared when it became a campaign to publish my name with old posts because at that time I was being evaluated by two national arts organizations and I know they were searching on my real name to learn about my online presence. Although the views I express here are just a secular view point on spiritual claims and I am proud of this work, the craziness that it often invokes might lead someone to declare guilt by association. I also do not want schools to be confused between my adult communications here and what I might teach in schools. D: Folks are now making a lot of assumptions about my feelings about content. I had long interviews with Rick about this in coming in to the job of FFL CEO. However, my coming in to the FFL CEO [Chief Enforcement Officer] of yahoo's groups-guidelines is not about content but is about the personalization of unkindness that has become cultural on FFL, like the unkindness you experienced. Me: I am not sure I can go along with conflating purposeful personal identity outing to hurt someone in the real world with "unkindness." It minimizes the intent to actually harm. I couldn't care less about people writing unkind things about me. I just don't want my full legal name published in an attempt to link my writing on this site with the rest of my work with the public. Personally I felt as though the instigators of this behavior all went to their own group so as far as I am concerned the problem is solved with them being gone. Their drive-bys have only reinforced this view. I will cop to making assumptions about your feelings about content. I have been confused by your actual views verses your Buck persona for a few years now. D: Generally going forward now, folks should expect that their posts will be summarily deleted where unkindness crosses in to violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. The guidelines are really quite simple and the many sophist-icated and several of our professional writers here can take the time for self-restraint before they may push their send button to FFL. Writing more generally, soon I am going to start following Rick's lead on this and start to delete posts or more made to the list without warning where the invective in writing is personalized. Yes it is fine to comment, deal with and thoughtfully consider content but if folks are having arguments that are personal they should just take themselves offline and spare FFL. Going forward, personalized name-calling that is degrading, disrespectful or humiliating will quickly be seen to become abuse on FFL. Read through the yahoo-groups guidelines and reflect. Where it is at all evident just expect to be moderated one way or another by any of the moderators without explanation. Me: Here we may disagree about the clarity of the Yahoo guidelines. They were probably written by lawyers to keep them out of lawsuits and they have not defined terms well enough to even be called guidelines for writing behavior. They basically are saying "Peace out, you decide what is unkind." And now that person who will be interpreting is you. It is what you have wanted for a long time so I hope it lives up to your expectations. D: Generally, I do not expect to spend much time editing at all on this or discussing this, particularly with trolls at all. Take the time to read over the yahoo-groups guidelines and write accordingly. Error well on the side of kindness and you will be well within the yahoo-groups guidelines and fine. Me: I don't expect to have any trouble with the guidelines since personal attack is not my reason to post here. You are in a position to assert your personal value system to interpret the vague "kindness" concept. I guess we will never really see these personal standards in action because of the Stasi system where messages will just be "dissapeared." Since there is no one on Yahoo policing
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : However, I do feel the need to point out that the approach you outline above still leaves you as "The man behind the curtain," not only censoring the flow of content to Fairfield Life, but doing so in secret. If you delete posts, how will anyone know that you deleted them? And, so what? What are we going to miss? Flagrant personal attacks, with primarily one objective - to push people's buttons? That possibility doesn't bother me, but evidently it bothers you. I believe it's called "giving it a chance", and "seeing how it works out" Won't it be the same as those icky "protect your kids" software programs that keep the kids from seeing any porn on their computers, but that *also* "protect" them from seeing anything about birth control or abortion? Or, to use another analogy, wouldn't it be the same as you being the librarian at a small-town library and unilaterally deciding to remove certain books from the shelves, without notifying anyone *which* books? J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. Again, see the quotes below. It wasn't just Doug. (And I wasn't one of those who contacted him, just for the record.) J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. Quotes from Rick's posts here: Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416427 I give little attention to FFL because I’m so busy with other things. But I’ve gotten so many complaints recently that I may appoint a moderator soon, and will announce it when I do. I don’t believe in censorship, but I also don’t believe in enabling abusive behavior. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416362 J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
From: "dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 5:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion Writing more generally, soon I am goingto start following Rick's lead on this and start to delete posts ormore made to the list without warning where the invective in writingis personalized. Yes it is fine to comment, deal with and thoughtfully consider content but if folks are having arguments that are personalthey should just take themselves offline and spare FFL. Goingforward, personalized name-calling that is degrading, disrespectfulor humiliating will quickly be seen to become abuse on FFL. Read through theyahoo-groups guidelines and reflect. Where it is at all evident just expectto be moderated one way or another by any of the moderators withoutexplanation. Go for it. And good luck. However, I do feel the need to point out that the approach you outline above still leaves you as "The man behind the curtain," not only censoring the flow of content to Fairfield Life, but doing so in secret. If you delete posts, how will anyone know that you deleted them? Won't it be the same as those icky "protect your kids" software programs that keep the kids from seeing any porn on their computers, but that *also* "protect" them from seeing anything about birth control or abortion? Or, to use another analogy, wouldn't it be the same as you being the librarian at a small-town library and unilaterally deciding to remove certain books from the shelves, without notifying anyone *which* books? As I said, good luck. Generally, I do not expect to spend much timeediting at all on this or discussing this, particularly with trollsat all. Take the time to read over the yahoo-groups guidelines andwrite accordingly. Error well on the side of kindness and you will be wellwithin the yahoo-groups guidelines and fine. I appreciate and understand that some lot offolks here spend a lot of their life energy and time composing thingsto post on FFL. Going forward now, self-regulate yourselvesaccording to the yahoo guidelines error-ing well on the side of kindnessand save yourself your time invested in writing. Having to deleteposts is a terrible waste of your time and my time as well to have todo it. CDB, I am glad you are back.-JaiGuruYou P.S., The Yahoo-groups Guidelines:https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm #Jumping the shark isan idiom created by Jon Hein that was used todescribe the moment in the evolution of a television show when itbegins a decline in quality, signaled by a particular scene, episode,or aspect of a show ..and is seen by viewers to be the pointat which the show strayed irreparably from its original premise. ..The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadenedbeyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design,franchise or creative effort's evolution declines.# ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Thanks Judy, I had not seen that and it does answer some of my concerns about Rick's intentions as well as supports your view that it is OK to use Doug's real name officially. Much appreciated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. See the quotes from Rick's posts below. I don't think there's much reason to expect him to go along with oppressive moderation given his past history, both with FFL and with the movement. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. Again, see the quotes below. It wasn't just Doug. (And I wasn't one of those who contacted him, just for the record.) J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an i
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote (to Curtis) : That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Doug, ad hominem is not a meme, it is an informal logical fallacy in which a personal characteristic or action or situation a person has or is in is taken as proof his/her argument is false. 'Ad hominem' means 'to the man', instead of refuting a logical argument or position directly, one diverts attention to the person who made the argument one does not believe or like. An ad hominem is not necessarily a personal attack although it could be. It's primary function is to act as a diversion to what the real discussion is about while seeming to be a point in the argument for a particular idea or line of reasoning. Extremely common in politics. A meme is 'an idea, behaviour, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture' and has little to do with ad hominem as a logical error. If I said regarding this subject here 'Doug cannot understand what 'ad hominem' means because he is a farmer', that would be an example of ad hominem. If I said 'Doug appears to be unaware of the definition of 'ad hominem', that would not be be ad hominem, it would just be an opinion I expressed, because it is not a reasoned argument about anything. A direct personal attack might also not be ad hominem either if it is not being used to refute the other person's position on a subject. It would just be personal invective. Saying something like 'You are so and so you $&@#$', is not ad hominem. Because Curtis studied philosophy, he would probably be the best person here to delineate these points. Now that last statement is called pro hominem, the opposite of ad hominem. That he studied philosophy is no guarantee that he would know, even though I think he does know and better than me. Here are some more samples of ad hominem. (from another website) A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty. A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.” Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs. Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _.” Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.” Attacking someone’s own sexual orientation in arguing about the right of LGBT individuals to marry such as “The only reason you could possibly be in favor of this is because you are not being honest about your own sexuality.” Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.” Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.” Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.” Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.” Use of marital status to invalidate an opinion of someone of a different status, e.g., “How can you make a decision about someone having marital problems if you’ve never been married yourself?” Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.” Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?” Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understa
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
CDB, I am glad you are back and I hope I can lend you as well as some others who would return some protection of trust and safety here to write more freely. The railroading of you by invasion of privacy was one of the more infamous times of abuse on FFL. That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Folks are now making a lot of assumptions about my feelings about content. I had long interviews with Rick about this in coming in to the job of FFL CEO. However, my coming in to the FFL CEO [Chief Enforcement Officer] of yahoo's groups-guidelines is not about content but is about the personalization of unkindness that has become cultural on FFL, like the unkindness you experienced. Generally going forward now, folks should expect that their posts will be summarily deleted where unkindness crosses in to violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. The guidelines are really quite simple and the many sophist-icated and several of our professional writers here can take the time for self-restraint before they may push their send button to FFL. Writing more generally, soon I am going to start following Rick's lead on this and start to delete posts or more made to the list without warning where the invective in writing is personalized. Yes it is fine to comment, deal with and thoughtfully consider content but if folks are having arguments that are personal they should just take themselves offline and spare FFL. Going forward, personalized name-calling that is degrading, disrespectful or humiliating will quickly be seen to become abuse on FFL. Read through the yahoo-groups guidelines and reflect. Where it is at all evident just expect to be moderated one way or another by any of the moderators without explanation. Generally, I do not expect to spend much time editing at all on this or discussing this, particularly with trolls at all. Take the time to read over the yahoo-groups guidelines and write accordingly. Error well on the side of kindness and you will be well within the yahoo-groups guidelines and fine. I appreciate and understand that some lot of folks here spend a lot of their life energy and time composing things to post on FFL. Going forward now, self-regulate yourselves according to the yahoo guidelines error-ing well on the side of kindness and save yourself your time invested in writing. Having to delete posts is a terrible waste of your time and my time as well to have to do it. CDB, I am glad you are back. -JaiGuruYou P.S., The Yahoo-groups Guidelines: https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm # Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality, signaled by a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show ..and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the show strayed irreparably from its original premise. ..The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise or creative effort's evolution declines. # ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Thanks Judy, I had not seen that and it does answer some of my concerns about Rick's intentions as well as supports your view that it is OK to use Doug's real name officially. Much appreciated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. See the quotes from Rick's posts below. I don't think there's much reason to expect him to go along with oppressive moderation given his past history, both with FFL and with the movement.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Thanks Judy, I had not seen that and it does answer some of my concerns about Rick's intentions as well as supports your view that it is OK to use Doug's real name officially. Much appreciated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. See the quotes from Rick's posts below. I don't think there's much reason to expect him to go along with oppressive moderation given his past history, both with FFL and with the movement. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. Again, see the quotes below. It wasn't just Doug. (And I wasn't one of those who contacted him, just for the record.) J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. Quotes from Rick's posts here: Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416427 I give little attention to FFL because I’m so busy with other things. But I’ve gotten so many complaints recently that I may appoint a moderator soon, and will announce it when I do. I don’t believe in censorship, but I also don’t believe in enabling abusive behavior. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416362 J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the fl
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. See the quotes from Rick's posts below. I don't think there's much reason to expect him to go along with oppressive moderation given his past history, both with FFL and with the movement. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. Again, see the quotes below. It wasn't just Doug. (And I wasn't one of those who contacted him, just for the record.) J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. Quotes from Rick's posts here: Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416427 I give little attention to FFL because I’m so busy with other things. But I’ve gotten so many complaints recently that I may appoint a moderator soon, and will announce it when I do. I don’t believe in censorship, but I also don’t believe in enabling abusive behavior. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416362 J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses hi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting "enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting "enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego go
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting "enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challen
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Revealing someone's real name if they prefer to remain anonymous is against the rules. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Uh oh! Seem like Buck himself used to say that revealing someone's real name on FFL is agin the rules! Look like I might not be the first causality of Buck's ascendency to the moderator's throne after all. From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton. That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting "enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Uh oh!
Seem like Buck himself used to say that revealing someone's real name on FFL is
agin the rules!
Look like I might not be the first causality of Buck's ascendency to the
moderator's throne after all.
From: "authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:44 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person
appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo
Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton.
That should answer at least some of your questions.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Imagine my surprise...
So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting
and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person
behind the schtick?
And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to
as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here?
Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be
offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person
behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway
since I have read so much more from the mask creature.
Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example
castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended
person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people
express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to
anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a
person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to
exert power over people with creative ability?
Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about
everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of
people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some
posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church
Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady
be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement
schtick and be exempt from his mighty power?
So many questions...
FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged
me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the
movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be
seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about
fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has
merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a
fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting
"enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I
experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective
today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as
enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I
loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane.
FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going
after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my
opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that
the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for
everyone I want to say this:
I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed
feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a
fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of
what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even
have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about
what I write...
I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender
feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up)
might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so
unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685 -- #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2006706685
#yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2006706685
#yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp #yiv2006706685hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp #yiv2006706685ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp .yiv2006706685ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp .yiv2006706685ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv20
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton. That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting "enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton. That should answer at least some of your questions. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting "enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion about Samâdhi and Liberation
Do you mean this? Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Shankara Bhashya translated by Swami Madhavananda https://archive.org/stream/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda#page/n137/mode/2up Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Shankara Bhashya translated by Swami Madhavananda https://archive.org/stream/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda#page/n137/mode/2up Internet Archive BookReader - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Shankara Bhashya translated by Swami Madhavananda The BookReader requires JavaScript to be enabled. View on archive.org https://archive.org/stream/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda#page/n137/mode/2up Preview by Yahoo And the definition of "physical" in Shankara's time, and "physical" these days is radically different. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Lawson sez: L: In order for perception to be perception, there must be a physical nervous system. This is contradicted by the Vedanta and Yoga darshana-s, which both assert the casual priority of the subtle body (sukhma sharira). That means there is preservation and continuity of a subtle nervous system of prana-nadis in a subtle body in the subtle realms. L: Even for universal consciousness to be "aware of" things (even of Itself), there must be structure -- some kind of physiology, even if it is "made of" Universal Consciousness with no defining characteristics besides being Universal Consciousness. L: aware of” things (even of itself) Shankara follows the Upanishads in defining the Self as self-luminous (svayamjyotish) & (âtmâ svayam chaitanya jyotis.svabhâvatâ). “Seeing” is the very nature of the Self. It does not require another luminosity to manifest it - any more than the Sun requires another light to illuminate it. It is awareness itself and doesn’t require reflexivity to make it evident. L: … with no defining characteristics This means no structure whatsoever and therefore no possible distinction between perceiver, perception and perceived. That means there can be no functioning physiology which can produce any experience at all. L: Our appreciation of this wholeness without duality is Samadhi and Samadhi can occur *because* our nervous system has taken on a certain form (supporting PC or CC or GC or UC, depending). Shankara never says realization of Brahman (Brahmajñâna) or the Self (Atman) depends upon or is associated with the cultivation of nirvikalpa samâdhi (non-conceptual absorption) in meditative union. In fact, he denies that yogic cessation or suspension of mental activity (citta.vritti.nirodha) is or can be a means to liberation/moksha. (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 1.4.7)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion about Samâdhi and Liberation
On 10/5/2014 11:19 AM, lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: Perhaps I've misunderstood, perhaps you have, or perhaps Shankara is simply wrong. > /MMY points out that even samadhi, which is already the state of Yoga in the sense of transcendental consciousness, serves as a means to the ultimate state of Yoga which is "cosmic consciousness." In the state of cosmic consciousness, transcendental consciousness has become permanently grounded in the nature of the mind - "kshanika" (momentary) samadhi has become "nitya" (perpetual) samadhi. / > L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : /Lawson sez:/ // /L: In order for perception to be perception, there must be a *physical*/**/nervous system./ // *This is contradicted by the Vedanta and Yoga darshana-s, which both assert the casual priority of the subtle body (sukhma sharira). That means there is preservation and continuity of a subtle nervous system of prana-nadis in a subtle body in the subtle realms. * // /L: Even for universal consciousness to be "aware of" things (even of Itself), *there must be structure* -- some kind of physiology, even if it is "made of" Universal Consciousness with no defining characteristics besides being Universal Consciousness. / // */L:/**//*/aware of” things (even of itself/*/)/**//* *//* *Shankara follows the Upanishads in defining the Self as self-luminous (svayamjyotish) & (âtmâ svayam chaitanya jyotis.svabhâvatâ). “Seeing” is the very nature of the Self. It does not require another luminosity to manifest it - any more than the Sun requires another light to illuminate it. It is awareness /itself/ and doesn’t require reflexivity to make it evident. * ** /L:/… /with no defining characteristics/** ** *This means no structure whatsoever and therefore no possible distinction between perceiver, perception and perceived. That means there can be no functioning physiology which can produce any experience at all**. * // /L: Our appreciation of this wholeness without duality is Samadhi andSamadhi can occur *because* our nervous system has taken on a certain form (supporting PC or CC or GC or UC, depending)./// *Shankara never says realization of Brahman (Brahmajñâna) or the Self (Atman) depends upon or is associated with the cultivation of nirvikalpa samâdhi (non-conceptual absorption) in meditative union. In fact, he /denies/ that yogic cessation or suspension of mental activity (citta.vritti.nirodha) is or can be a means to liberation/moksha. /(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 1.4.7)/*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion about Samâdhi and Liberation
Perhaps I've misunderstood, perhaps you have, or perhaps Shankara is simply wrong. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Lawson sez: L: In order for perception to be perception, there must be a physical nervous system. This is contradicted by the Vedanta and Yoga darshana-s, which both assert the casual priority of the subtle body (sukhma sharira). That means there is preservation and continuity of a subtle nervous system of prana-nadis in a subtle body in the subtle realms. L: Even for universal consciousness to be "aware of" things (even of Itself), there must be structure -- some kind of physiology, even if it is "made of" Universal Consciousness with no defining characteristics besides being Universal Consciousness. L: aware of” things (even of itself) Shankara follows the Upanishads in defining the Self as self-luminous (svayamjyotish) & (âtmâ svayam chaitanya jyotis.svabhâvatâ). “Seeing” is the very nature of the Self. It does not require another luminosity to manifest it - any more than the Sun requires another light to illuminate it. It is awareness itself and doesn’t require reflexivity to make it evident. L: … with no defining characteristics This means no structure whatsoever and therefore no possible distinction between perceiver, perception and perceived. That means there can be no functioning physiology which can produce any experience at all. L: Our appreciation of this wholeness without duality is Samadhi and Samadhi can occur *because* our nervous system has taken on a certain form (supporting PC or CC or GC or UC, depending). Shankara never says realization of Brahman (Brahmajñâna) or the Self (Atman) depends upon or is associated with the cultivation of nirvikalpa samâdhi (non-conceptual absorption) in meditative union. In fact, he denies that yogic cessation or suspension of mental activity (citta.vritti.nirodha) is or can be a means to liberation/moksha. (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhasya 1.4.7)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
> > All the Indian deified heros such as Vasudeva, > > Rama, Ramchandra, and Krishna came long after > > the composition of the Vedas in 1500 B.C. > > Bhairitu wrote: > Depends upon the translations doesn't it? > No. You are mistaken if you mean the Rig Veda refers to a dark lustful youth playing on a flute going by name of Vasudeva, son of Devaki. There are no yogis, avatars, no Krishans and no Mrs. Radhas in the Rig Veda or in the Yoga Sutras. Neither are there reincarnation, karma, or dharma, and there are no bija mantras. There are no 'devatas' in the Vedas, that is, there are no household or sylvan deities, apart from or in addition to the supernal devas such as Surya, Indra or Vishnu. Devatas belong to earth and do not share in the charateristics of devas. Devatas are all minor mind-made demi-gods such as Shiva and Durga, or mere yakshis dwelling in the kadamba tree. Devatas are just potencies, instruments, or in some cases, deified heros such as Vasudeva, Krishna, or Ramchandra. On the other hand, a Deva is a 'celestial' power, the deification or personification of natural forces and phenomena, distiguised by name and attributes in the Rig Veda and the Zend Avesta.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
Richard J. Williams wrote: > Bhairitu wrote: > >> Indian yogis personified the fields of nature... >> >> > You need to get some smarts, Mr. Bharat2. There > were no 'yogis' mentioned in the Vedas. It was > the Vedic authors who personified the forces of > nature. Patanjali does not mention any 'forces > of nature' in his Yoga Sutras. Ishvara is the > God of Yogins, the Transcendental Person, not a > 'force of nature' like the Sun, the Moon, the > Wind or the Earth. All the Indian deified heros > such as Vasudeva, Rama, Ramchandra, and Krishna > came long after the composition of the Vedas in > 1500 B.C. Depends upon the translations doesn't it? I believe in the translations they get called "priests" (but I'm not going to go dig through them to find out).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
emptybill wrote: > Over the years I have heard an argument professed by > some former TM meditators who stopped practicing because > they claimed they were deceived about the "meaning" > of mantra-s. > Have you noticed, Bill, how rapidly the content of messages like this go from intelligence to sheer infantlism?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
> When the Rishis wanted to express the silent value > of pure consciousness they gave a name Shiva > Mr. Henry Herzberger needs to read some Indian history. There's no mention of 'Shiva' in the Rig Veda and no mention of any bija mantras. The various Hindu sects, Shaivaism, Vaishnaiva, and Tantrism came long after the Vedas were composed (circa 1500 B.C.) during the Gupta Age. There are no 'devatas' in the the Rig Veda. The Vedas are concerned with the supernal dieties, the forces of nature such as the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth. The worship of devatas such as Ramchandra, Rama, Vasudeva and Krishna came long after the the composition of the Vedas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
Bhairitu wrote: > Indian yogis personified the fields of nature... > You need to get some smarts, Mr. Bharat2. There were no 'yogis' mentioned in the Vedas. It was the Vedic authors who personified the forces of nature. Patanjali does not mention any 'forces of nature' in his Yoga Sutras. Ishvara is the God of Yogins, the Transcendental Person, not a 'force of nature' like the Sun, the Moon, the Wind or the Earth. All the Indian deified heros such as Vasudeva, Rama, Ramchandra, and Krishna came long after the composition of the Vedas in 1500 B.C.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
On Sep 18, 2007, at 11:40 AM, authfriend wrote: > Stop trying to twist people intentions as if you knew what > they were. Yeah, it's a drag when somebody sees right through your intentions, ain't it? You tell me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:20 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to > > > > qualities > > > > > > of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities > > of > > > > > > consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the > > > > > > practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different > > > > that > > > > > > way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a > > > > dimension > > > > > > that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not > > visible > > > > to > > > > > > the eye. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. > > > > > > > > Better clean out your nose, Vaj. It's not just a > > > > TMO notion by any means. > > > > > > Nor did I indicate it was. > > > > Well, yes, you did. You said "It smells of TMO > > reductionism," not "It smells of the reductionism > > that's been a popular trend since at least > > Aurobindo, but possibly a Vaishnavite trend which > > is much older." > > Uh, no I did not say it was ONLY from the TMO (nor > did I intend to). Not after I challenged you, certainly. > Stop trying to twist people intentions as if you knew what > they were. Yeah, it's a drag when somebody sees right through your intentions, ain't it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
On Sep 17, 2007, at 7:51 PM, emptybill wrote: On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to qualities of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different that way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a dimension that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible to the eye. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. It makes westerners feel more at ease or as if there is no form corresponding to the sound (of the bija) that they'd have to worry about. Emptybill says: So Vaj help me out. Are you simply saying that Bronte's explanation accords with Aurobindo and the TMO? No, I'm pointing out the reformist movements of Aurobindo, et al, are not only parallels with the post-Shankara Vaishnavite revival where the merchant class, controlling translation of Shaivite texts attempted to obscure their origins and to connect the Shaivite gnosis to an imagined Vedic tradition, but they themselves (Aurobindo, Vivekanada, the TMO and others) are also similar to the Vaishnavite- inspired tendencies which occurred during the British colonial period to reduce the older Dravidian gnosis to something palatable for western prejudices. And again they tried to blend the earlier Dravidian teachings and tried to link them to some imagined "Vedic tradition". But truly there is little or nothing left of the Aryan Vedic tradition. Most of practical Hindu spirituality--including the Hindu sciences (Ayurveda, Vastu, etc.)--are all tantric in origin. Even the Bhagavad-gita is derived derived from the agamas. Because saying it accords with Vaishnava explanations doesn't make sense to me. Not Vaishnavism in the sense you're thinking, but Vaishnavism as the religion of the city and priests which seeks to co-opt the Pagan, ecstatic religions of the Shaivites and the Agamas, and reduce it to something acceptable to city dwellers. And today, acceptable to the west, primarily Judaeo-Christians. Most of them are super-concretizers. However, saying that many Westerners attempt to find a diffuse, metaphoric way to explain deva-s is certainly true of the typical Western intellectualizing Buddhist and also of some "Hinduized Westerners". Yes!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to qualities of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different that way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a dimension that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible to the eye. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. It makes westerners feel more at ease or as if there is no form corresponding to the sound (of the bija) that they'd have to worry about. Emptybill says: So Vaj help me out. Are you simply saying that Bronte's explanation accords with Aurobindo and the TMO? Because saying it accords with Vaishnava explanations doesn't make sense to me. Most of them are super-concretizers. However, saying that many Westerners attempt to find a diffuse, metaphoric way to explain deva-s is certainly true of the typical Western intellectualizing Buddhist and also of some "Hinduized Westerners". Also, are you suggesting that Vajrakila and Yamantaka have wings so that they can fly? Please clarify. And don't waste the time of both of us by ranting about the TMO. What are you actually trying to point out here? empty
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:20 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: > > > > > > > I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to > > qualities > > > > of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of > > > > consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the > > > > practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different > > that > > > > way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a > > dimension > > > > that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible > > to > > > > the eye. > > > > > > > > > Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. > > > > Better clean out your nose, Vaj. It's not just a > > TMO notion by any means. > > Nor did I indicate it was. Well, yes, you did. You said "It smells of TMO reductionism," not "It smells of the reductionism that's been a popular trend since at least Aurobindo, but possibly a Vaishnavite trend which is much older." Uh, no I did not say it was ONLY from the TMO (nor did I intend to). Stop trying to twist people intentions as if you knew what they were.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: > > > > > > > I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to > > qualities > > > > of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of > > > > consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the > > > > practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different > > that > > > > way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a > > dimension > > > > that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible > > to > > > > the eye. > > > > > > > > > Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. > > > > Better clean out your nose, Vaj. It's not just a > > TMO notion by any means. > > Nor did I indicate it was. Well, yes, you did. You said "It smells of TMO reductionism," not "It smells of the reductionism that's been a popular trend since at least Aurobindo, but possibly a Vaishnavite trend which is much older." (Not to mention that "reductionism" is a pretty odd term to describe it. Check Mr. Dictionary.) It's been a popular trend since at least > Aurobindo, but possibly a Vaishnavite trend which is much older. I > tend to associate this trend to British raj Vaishnavite trends > though, esp. in regard to westerners. TMO probably takes the cake > though in regards to such distortions. Or not. And of course it may well not be "distortions." The distortion may be the personifications rather than the abstractions. > Restoring the purity of the tradition? LOL, tell it to > someone else. You tell it to someone else, Vaj. I didn't say it, you did.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: > > > I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to qualities > > of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of > > consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the > > practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different that > > way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a dimension > > that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible to > > the eye. > > > Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. Better clean out your nose, Vaj. It's not just a TMO notion by any means. Nor did I indicate it was. It's been a popular trend since at least Aurobindo, but possibly a Vaishnavite trend which is much older. I tend to associate this trend to British raj Vaishnavite trends though, esp. in regard to westerners. TMO probably takes the cake though in regards to such distortions. Restoring the purity of the tradition? LOL, tell it to someone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: > > > I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to qualities > > of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of > > consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the > > practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different that > > way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a dimension > > that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible to > > the eye. > > > Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. Better clean out your nose, Vaj. It's not just a TMO notion by any means. It makes > westerners feel more at ease or as if there is no form corresponding > to the sound (of the bija) that they'd have to worry about.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to qualities of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different that way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a dimension that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible to the eye. Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. It makes westerners feel more at ease or as if there is no form corresponding to the sound (of the bija) that they'd have to worry about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The gods need humans to invent things like cocktails. Wouldn't that be a cool thing to have on your resume? Bartender, the Samadhi bar at the Brahmaloka Hilton: * Designed, mixed and served cocktails from the finest * lokas in the universe for consumption by gods and * goddesses. All done without the extra two sets of * arms that my customers have. > --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > > Belief is gods is silly. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > Belief in humans is silly. > > > > The gods, over cocktails > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. > http://tv.yahoo.com/ >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
The gods need humans to invent things like cocktails. --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Belief is gods is silly. > > > > OffWorld > > > Belief in humans is silly. > > The gods, over cocktails > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Belief is gods is silly. > > OffWorld Belief in humans is silly. The gods, over cocktails
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
Bronte Baxter wrote: > > "Indra The Unifying Value of the Self which unifies all the laws of > nature in order to promote evolution (the Power of dharma) > > Indrani or Sachi The feminine power of unification and evolution" > > > Hmm. If gods are simply anthropomophisms invented by the sages to explain > concepts they thought we were too dumb to understand, how do we explain the > same gods, by different names, appearing in so many different cultures? > The theory goes that the source was the same for the other cultures and not necessarily "Indian" yogis. In some cases the names are very similar.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
"Indra The Unifying Value of the Self which unifies all the laws of nature in order to promote evolution (the Power of dharma) Indrani or Sachi The feminine power of unification and evolution" Hmm. If gods are simply anthropomophisms invented by the sages to explain concepts they thought we were too dumb to understand, how do we explain the same gods, by different names, appearing in so many different cultures? Let's look at that Indra and Indrani for example. In India Indra is the god of thunder and king of the gods. In Greek legend, there is also a god of thunder who -- strangely enough -- is also considered the king of the gods. In India, Indra's wife is Indrani -- famous for her great jealousy . Whaddaya know, in Greek legend this same goddess appears -- the wife of the king of the gods, notorious for her great jealousy. (Zeus and Hera these two are called in Greek myth.) I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to qualities of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different that way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a dimension that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible to the eye. authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indian yogis personified the fields of nature they perceived to > make the science of yoga more understandable to the general public. > I heard a great lecture on this when in Cochin once. Personification > also makes teachings easier to remember. A bit of synchronicity: I was looking for something in Google's archive for alt.meditation.transcendental and stumbled across the post from almost 10 years ago I'm reproducing below. I had found this essay on the Web site for the Age of Enlightenment Mall, a Fairfield operation that is apparently now defunct (at least, the URL no longer works). About The Vedic Deities The Inner Dimension of the Devas The consciousness which we experience in common as pure awareness has been described as long as man has existed in different terms. The totality of pure being which is the basis of the Cosmic Intelligence has been said to have the qualities of silence, omnipresence of love, and creative power. The ancient seers of every culture have described that Cosmic Intelligence which is formless, limitless, infinite, and pure awareness as the Mother of all Life. In ancient India, these great seers of thousands of years ago were called Rishis. They gave expression to their experiences of the unbounded Cosmic Intelligence or Self in the language of feeling. The language they used was a universal language called the Vedic Language of which Sanskrit is the present remnant. The word Veda means "knowledge", so the Vedic language was a language made up of the spontaneous expressions of the heart which came about as a result of direct cognition of the qualities of the objects, concepts and emotions they experienced. For example, one Vedic word in every culture is the sound Ma. "Mama" is a word expressing every child's experience of their mother and is expressive of the same mother quality across all nations and civilizations. [Note: It's been suggested that the sound "ma" refers to "mother" in so many cultures not because of any inherent subtle value of the sound that is expressive of experience of the maternal quality, but simply because when a baby starts to babble, "ma" is the first sound it makes--all it requires is opening and closing the mouth while activating the vocal cords. The sound has been associated with the mother because the mother is usually the first one to hear the baby make it, and it's assumed the baby's first utterance would be directed at the object in its environment that is the primary focus of its attention.--JS] Similarly our word "heart" is derived from the Vedic sound "Hrid" which described the sound of the pulse of the heart. When the Rishis wanted to express the silent value of pure consciousness they gave a name Shiva. The word "Shiva" means silence--"Shivam Shantam Advaitam Chaturtham" i.e., Shiva is silence (Shantam), non-dual (Advaitam), the fourth state of awareness (Chaturtham) transcending the transitory sleep, waking and dream states. Similarly when the Rishis wanted to express the value of omnipresence of love--that consciousness seemed to them so harmonizing and unifying--they expressed that quality as Vishnu: Vish means to pervade and nu means within, i.e. that consciousness which is all pervading within. When the Rishis wanted to express the fact that the Cosmic Intelligence, their Self, was huge and creative giving rise to the whole universe they used the word Brahma. The word Brahma comes from the sound Brihat (huge). The "B" in Brahma stands for the formation
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, a very good find, thanks. I'd completely forgotten it existed. I can't believe I came across it entirely accidentally right on the heels of emptybill's post on the same topic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
Judy, a very good find, thanks. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > Indian yogis personified the fields of nature they perceived to > > make the science of yoga more understandable to the general public. > > I heard a great lecture on this when in Cochin once. Personification > > also makes teachings easier to remember. > > A bit of synchronicity: > > I was looking for something in Google's archive > for alt.meditation.transcendental and stumbled > across the post from almost 10 years ago I'm > reproducing below. I had found this essay on the > Web site for the Age of Enlightenment Mall, a > Fairfield operation that is apparently now > defunct (at least, the URL no longer works). > > About The Vedic Deities > The Inner Dimension of the Devas > > The consciousness which we experience in common as pure awareness has > been described as long as man has existed in different terms. The > totality of pure being which is the basis of the Cosmic Intelligence > has been said to have the qualities of silence, omnipresence of love, > and creative power. The ancient seers of every culture have described > that Cosmic Intelligence which is formless, limitless, infinite, and > pure awareness as the Mother of all Life. > > In ancient India, these great seers of thousands of years ago were > called Rishis. They gave expression to their experiences of the > unbounded Cosmic Intelligence or Self in the language of feeling. The > language they used was a universal language called the Vedic Language > of which Sanskrit is the present remnant. The word Veda > means "knowledge", so the Vedic language was a language made up of > the spontaneous expressions of the heart which came about as a result > of direct cognition of the qualities of the objects, concepts and > emotions they experienced. > > For example, one Vedic word in every culture is the sound Ma. "Mama" > is a word expressing every child's experience of their mother and is > expressive of the same mother quality across all nations and > civilizations. [Note: It's been suggested that the sound "ma" refers > to "mother" in so many cultures not because of any inherent subtle > value of the sound that is expressive of experience of the maternal > quality, but simply because when a baby starts to babble, "ma" is the > first sound it makes--all it requires is opening and closing the > mouth while activating the vocal cords. The sound has been associated > with the mother because the mother is usually the first one to hear > the baby make it, and it's assumed the baby's first utterance would > be directed at the object in its environment that is the primary > focus of its attention.--JS] > > Similarly our word "heart" is derived from the Vedic sound "Hrid" > which described the sound of the pulse of the heart. When the Rishis > wanted to express the silent value of pure consciousness they gave a > name Shiva. The word "Shiva" means silence--"Shivam Shantam Advaitam > Chaturtham" i.e., Shiva is silence (Shantam), non-dual (Advaitam), > the fourth state of awareness (Chaturtham) transcending the > transitory sleep, waking and dream states. Similarly when the Rishis > wanted to express the value of omnipresence of love--that > consciousness seemed to them so harmonizing and unifying--they > expressed that quality as Vishnu: Vish means to pervade and nu means > within, i.e. that consciousness which is all pervading within. > > When the Rishis wanted to express the fact that the Cosmic > Intelligence, their Self, was huge and creative giving rise to the > whole universe they used the word Brahma. The word Brahma comes from > the sound Brihat (huge). The "B" in Brahma stands for the formation > of boundaries; the "r" stands for activity of creation; the "a" > indicates expansion of creation; and the "m" in Brahma signified the > bliss of vibrating within oneself--the cosmic hum. It is that cosmic > joy in waves of bliss that allows the universe to be maintained in > ever expanding waves of life. > > Naturally, some Rishis felt that these three qualities of creative > energy, omnipresence of love, and the quality of silence or pure > beingness needed to be appreciated in terms of femininity. They felt > that Cosmic Intelligence was nurturing and full of the lovingness > that a mother would have so they expressed that feeling in terms of > expressions reflecting the female nature (Mother Nature) of each of > these sound-qualities previously mentioned. So some Rishis said that > the silent nature of pure consciousness is Shivaa (feminine term like > Shiva); other Rishis said that Cosmic Intelligence was omnipresent > love as a Mother Divine called Vaishnavi (feminine form of the word > Vishnu); and yet other Rishis expressed the creative energy of the > Cosmic Self as Brahmi (feminine form of Brahma). > > In
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of off_world_beings > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:09 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in > meditation > > > > << Do you think any subtle or celestial beings > > exist?>> > > No, they are me, I am them, they are in me, just as I am in you, and > you are in the totality of all things. > > Then they exist, just as the grosser components of our limited form (body) > exist. Just because we are all essentially made of the same stuff doesn't > mean there is no reality to the individual expressions of that stuff.>>> Whatever floats your boat, but calling the sun , "the moon" won't get you anywhere. > > << How about Off World Beings?>> > > Plenty, and more to come. > > Bring `em on.>> That's what the last guy said, and look what happened to him ! OffWorld
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:09 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation << Do you think any subtle or celestial beings > exist?>> No, they are me, I am them, they are in me, just as I am in you, and you are in the totality of all things. Then they exist, just as the grosser components of our limited form (body) exist. Just because we are all essentially made of the same stuff doesn’t mean there is no reality to the individual expressions of that stuff. << How about Off World Beings?>> Plenty, and more to come. Bring ‘em on. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.21/1012 - Release Date: 9/16/2007 6:32 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of off_world_beings > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:55 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in > meditation > > > > Belief is gods is silly. > > You don't think they exist?>> No. It is afigment of the imagination made up for children. << Do you think any subtle or celestial beings > exist?>> No, they are me, I am them, they are in me, just as I am in you, and you are in the totality of all things. << How about Off World Beings?>> Plenty, and more to come. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--Thx, Authfriend, excellent article! (but there's one minor flaw in it). He's implying that such entities are only symbolic of impersonal forces and forgot the convenient fact that the Deities are also "real" Personalities that can interact with humans, just as humans can interact with other humans. Thus, the deities are holographic composites of Personal and impersonal forces (but that's what we are, only less powerful).> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > Indian yogis personified the fields of nature they perceived to > > > make the science of yoga more understandable to the general > public. > > > I heard a great lecture on this when in Cochin once. > Personification > > > also makes teachings easier to remember. > > > > A bit of synchronicity: > > > > I was looking for something in Google's archive > > for alt.meditation.transcendental and stumbled > > across the post from almost 10 years ago I'm > > reproducing below. I had found this essay on the > > Web site for the Age of Enlightenment Mall, a > > Fairfield operation that is apparently now > > defunct (at least, the URL no longer works). > > > > About The Vedic Deities > > The Inner Dimension of the Devas > > > > The consciousness which we experience in common as pure awareness > has > > been described as long as man has existed in different terms. The > > totality of pure being which is the basis of the Cosmic > Intelligence > > has been said to have the qualities of silence, omnipresence of > love, > > and creative power. The ancient seers of every culture have > described > > that Cosmic Intelligence which is formless, limitless, infinite, > and > > pure awareness as the Mother of all Life. > > > > In ancient India, these great seers of thousands of years ago were > > called Rishis. They gave expression to their experiences of the > > unbounded Cosmic Intelligence or Self in the language of feeling. > The > > language they used was a universal language called the Vedic > Language > > of which Sanskrit is the present remnant. The word Veda > > means "knowledge", so the Vedic language was a language made up of > > the spontaneous expressions of the heart which came about as a > result > > of direct cognition of the qualities of the objects, concepts and > > emotions they experienced. > > > > For example, one Vedic word in every culture is the sound > Ma. "Mama" > > is a word expressing every child's experience of their mother and > is > > expressive of the same mother quality across all nations and > > civilizations. [Note: It's been suggested that the sound "ma" > refers > > to "mother" in so many cultures not because of any inherent subtle > > value of the sound that is expressive of experience of the > maternal > > quality, but simply because when a baby starts to babble, "ma" is > the > > first sound it makes--all it requires is opening and closing the > > mouth while activating the vocal cords. The sound has been > associated > > with the mother because the mother is usually the first one to > hear > > the baby make it, and it's assumed the baby's first utterance > would > > be directed at the object in its environment that is the primary > > focus of its attention.--JS] > > > > Similarly our word "heart" is derived from the Vedic sound "Hrid" > > which described the sound of the pulse of the heart. When the > Rishis > > wanted to express the silent value of pure consciousness they gave > a > > name Shiva. The word "Shiva" means silence--"Shivam Shantam > Advaitam > > Chaturtham" i.e., Shiva is silence (Shantam), non-dual (Advaitam), > > the fourth state of awareness (Chaturtham) transcending the > > transitory sleep, waking and dream states. Similarly when the > Rishis > > wanted to express the value of omnipresence of love--that > > consciousness seemed to them so harmonizing and unifying--they > > expressed that quality as Vishnu: Vish means to pervade and nu > means > > within, i.e. that consciousness which is all pervading within. > > > > When the Rishis wanted to express the fact that the Cosmic > > Intelligence, their Self, was huge and creative giving rise to the > > whole universe they used the word Brahma. The word Brahma comes > from > > the sound Brihat (huge). The "B" in Brahma stands for the > formation > > of boundaries; the "r" stands for activity of creation; the "a" > > indicates expansion of creation; and the "m" in Brahma signified > the > > bliss of vibrating within oneself--the cosmic hum. It is that > cosmic > > joy in waves of bliss that allows the universe to be maintained in > > ever expanding waves of life. > > > > Naturally, some Rishis felt that these three qualities of creative > > energy, omnipresence of love, and the quality of silence or pure > > beingness needed to be appreciated in terms of femininity. The
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > Indian yogis personified the fields of nature they perceived to > > make the science of yoga more understandable to the general public. > > I heard a great lecture on this when in Cochin once. Personification > > also makes teachings easier to remember. > > A bit of synchronicity: > > I was looking for something in Google's archive > for alt.meditation.transcendental and stumbled > across the post from almost 10 years ago I'm > reproducing below. I had found this essay on the > Web site for the Age of Enlightenment Mall, a > Fairfield operation that is apparently now > defunct (at least, the URL no longer works). > > About The Vedic Deities > The Inner Dimension of the Devas > > The consciousness which we experience in common as pure awareness has > been described as long as man has existed in different terms. The > totality of pure being which is the basis of the Cosmic Intelligence > has been said to have the qualities of silence, omnipresence of love, > and creative power. The ancient seers of every culture have described > that Cosmic Intelligence which is formless, limitless, infinite, and > pure awareness as the Mother of all Life. > > In ancient India, these great seers of thousands of years ago were > called Rishis. They gave expression to their experiences of the > unbounded Cosmic Intelligence or Self in the language of feeling. The > language they used was a universal language called the Vedic Language > of which Sanskrit is the present remnant. The word Veda > means "knowledge", so the Vedic language was a language made up of > the spontaneous expressions of the heart which came about as a result > of direct cognition of the qualities of the objects, concepts and > emotions they experienced. > > For example, one Vedic word in every culture is the sound Ma. "Mama" > is a word expressing every child's experience of their mother and is > expressive of the same mother quality across all nations and > civilizations. [Note: It's been suggested that the sound "ma" refers > to "mother" in so many cultures not because of any inherent subtle > value of the sound that is expressive of experience of the maternal > quality, but simply because when a baby starts to babble, "ma" is the > first sound it makes--all it requires is opening and closing the > mouth while activating the vocal cords. The sound has been associated > with the mother because the mother is usually the first one to hear > the baby make it, and it's assumed the baby's first utterance would > be directed at the object in its environment that is the primary > focus of its attention.--JS] > > Similarly our word "heart" is derived from the Vedic sound "Hrid" > which described the sound of the pulse of the heart. When the Rishis > wanted to express the silent value of pure consciousness they gave a > name Shiva. The word "Shiva" means silence--"Shivam Shantam Advaitam > Chaturtham" i.e., Shiva is silence (Shantam), non-dual (Advaitam), > the fourth state of awareness (Chaturtham) transcending the > transitory sleep, waking and dream states. Similarly when the Rishis > wanted to express the value of omnipresence of love--that > consciousness seemed to them so harmonizing and unifying--they > expressed that quality as Vishnu: Vish means to pervade and nu means > within, i.e. that consciousness which is all pervading within. > > When the Rishis wanted to express the fact that the Cosmic > Intelligence, their Self, was huge and creative giving rise to the > whole universe they used the word Brahma. The word Brahma comes from > the sound Brihat (huge). The "B" in Brahma stands for the formation > of boundaries; the "r" stands for activity of creation; the "a" > indicates expansion of creation; and the "m" in Brahma signified the > bliss of vibrating within oneself--the cosmic hum. It is that cosmic > joy in waves of bliss that allows the universe to be maintained in > ever expanding waves of life. > > Naturally, some Rishis felt that these three qualities of creative > energy, omnipresence of love, and the quality of silence or pure > beingness needed to be appreciated in terms of femininity. They felt > that Cosmic Intelligence was nurturing and full of the lovingness > that a mother would have so they expressed that feeling in terms of > expressions reflecting the female nature (Mother Nature) of each of > these sound-qualities previously mentioned. So some Rishis said that > the silent nature of pure consciousness is Shivaa (feminine term like > Shiva); other Rishis said that Cosmic Intelligence was omnipresent > love as a Mother Divine called Vaishnavi (feminine form of the word > Vishnu); and yet other Rishis expressed the creative energy of the > Cosmic Self as Brahmi (feminine form of Brahma). > > In add
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indian yogis personified the fields of nature they perceived to > make the science of yoga more understandable to the general public. > I heard a great lecture on this when in Cochin once. Personification > also makes teachings easier to remember. A bit of synchronicity: I was looking for something in Google's archive for alt.meditation.transcendental and stumbled across the post from almost 10 years ago I'm reproducing below. I had found this essay on the Web site for the Age of Enlightenment Mall, a Fairfield operation that is apparently now defunct (at least, the URL no longer works). About The Vedic Deities The Inner Dimension of the Devas The consciousness which we experience in common as pure awareness has been described as long as man has existed in different terms. The totality of pure being which is the basis of the Cosmic Intelligence has been said to have the qualities of silence, omnipresence of love, and creative power. The ancient seers of every culture have described that Cosmic Intelligence which is formless, limitless, infinite, and pure awareness as the Mother of all Life. In ancient India, these great seers of thousands of years ago were called Rishis. They gave expression to their experiences of the unbounded Cosmic Intelligence or Self in the language of feeling. The language they used was a universal language called the Vedic Language of which Sanskrit is the present remnant. The word Veda means "knowledge", so the Vedic language was a language made up of the spontaneous expressions of the heart which came about as a result of direct cognition of the qualities of the objects, concepts and emotions they experienced. For example, one Vedic word in every culture is the sound Ma. "Mama" is a word expressing every child's experience of their mother and is expressive of the same mother quality across all nations and civilizations. [Note: It's been suggested that the sound "ma" refers to "mother" in so many cultures not because of any inherent subtle value of the sound that is expressive of experience of the maternal quality, but simply because when a baby starts to babble, "ma" is the first sound it makes--all it requires is opening and closing the mouth while activating the vocal cords. The sound has been associated with the mother because the mother is usually the first one to hear the baby make it, and it's assumed the baby's first utterance would be directed at the object in its environment that is the primary focus of its attention.--JS] Similarly our word "heart" is derived from the Vedic sound "Hrid" which described the sound of the pulse of the heart. When the Rishis wanted to express the silent value of pure consciousness they gave a name Shiva. The word "Shiva" means silence--"Shivam Shantam Advaitam Chaturtham" i.e., Shiva is silence (Shantam), non-dual (Advaitam), the fourth state of awareness (Chaturtham) transcending the transitory sleep, waking and dream states. Similarly when the Rishis wanted to express the value of omnipresence of love--that consciousness seemed to them so harmonizing and unifying--they expressed that quality as Vishnu: Vish means to pervade and nu means within, i.e. that consciousness which is all pervading within. When the Rishis wanted to express the fact that the Cosmic Intelligence, their Self, was huge and creative giving rise to the whole universe they used the word Brahma. The word Brahma comes from the sound Brihat (huge). The "B" in Brahma stands for the formation of boundaries; the "r" stands for activity of creation; the "a" indicates expansion of creation; and the "m" in Brahma signified the bliss of vibrating within oneself--the cosmic hum. It is that cosmic joy in waves of bliss that allows the universe to be maintained in ever expanding waves of life. Naturally, some Rishis felt that these three qualities of creative energy, omnipresence of love, and the quality of silence or pure beingness needed to be appreciated in terms of femininity. They felt that Cosmic Intelligence was nurturing and full of the lovingness that a mother would have so they expressed that feeling in terms of expressions reflecting the female nature (Mother Nature) of each of these sound-qualities previously mentioned. So some Rishis said that the silent nature of pure consciousness is Shivaa (feminine term like Shiva); other Rishis said that Cosmic Intelligence was omnipresent love as a Mother Divine called Vaishnavi (feminine form of the word Vishnu); and yet other Rishis expressed the creative energy of the Cosmic Self as Brahmi (feminine form of Brahma). In addition to the three primary aspects of the Cosmic Self as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva there was another value of the Self which was given the name of Ganapati. The word Ganapati or Ganesha means the lord of the ganas, the powers of the Transcendental Consciousness of Shi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Over the years I have heard an argument professed by some former TM > meditators who stopped practicing because they claimed they were > deceived about the "meaning" of mantra-s. I have also seen > similar declarations put forth by various disputant webrunners wishing > to dissuade anyone from beginning any form of mantra meditation with > roots in India. > > > > The fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god > an assertion also put forth by many Indian nationals and ex-patriots. > Therefore, the conclusion is that a mantra encapsulates a method for > worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from > practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, the webrunners often > will quote a webtext from a Hindu Tantra, which assigns a particular > deity to a particular mantra and sometimes assigns a set of deities to > each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written form of the mantric > sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and > sometimes is done in the classical Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. > > > > Along with the quoted Tantric text, is often a statement by MMY, > declaring that a mantra is a "sound whose effect is known". This > argument sometimes quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for > the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement > of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of > shameful exploitation of Westerner's ignorance of the > "Hinduistic" foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation > which does not confess itself as a form of "Hindu > devotionalism". This devotionalist criticism is compounded by > various Indian swamis and cross-eyed "yogi-s" who make these > very claims and arguments themselves. > > > > Some considerations about these claims: > > > > 1. Most meditating westerners are functionally ignorant about the > nature, range, depth and complexity of Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain > yoga-s. Most of them could not explain the difference between Vedic, > Hindu and Tantric traditions of practice nor could they explain how > these three streams intertwine in daily rites. They don't know vidhi > from vedi. > > > > 1. Most swami-s and exported "yogi-s" are not Pandits, > Indologists, or Sanskritists nor are they formally educated in the yoga > traditions of the Indian subcontinent. Most are only trained in asana, > pranayama and japa. A little bhakti here, a little jnana citation there > and "om tat sat". > > > > 1. Most of us Westerners who meditate are therefore at a > disadvantage when presented with claims that we cannot contextualize > within an informed view. > > > > My point here is to give people a corrective to this misunderstanding by > providing a short but authoritative quotation from an impeccable source > about the difference between yogic mantra practice and devotional japa > practice. > > > > Baba Hari Dass - On Mantra: > > > > Mantra is the repetition of sounds or words which have power due to the > vibration of the sound itself. Japa is the rhythmic repetition of a name > of God. It consists of automatic Pranayama, concentration and > meditation. The main idea in doing Japa is to make the mind thoughtless. > Then automatically body consciousness disappears. If your body > consciousness disappears, it means your sadhana is going well. The body > is the medium of sadhana and the body is the hindrance in sadhana. Japa > is a formal method of worshipping God. It should be done privately and > preferably with a mala, or rosary. > > > > Silence Speaks: from the chalkboard of Baba Hari Dass, 1977 (my talics). > > > > This distinction between the yogic sound-value of a mantra and > devotional, religious practices using mantra-s is also found in the > Tibetan Vajrayana (originally called Mantrayana) and was discussed by > Lama Khenchen Thrangu, Tibetan Khempo and tutor to HH the 17th Karmapa. > > emptybill Thanks...I can rest easier now!
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of off_world_beings Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:55 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation Belief is gods is silly. You don’t think they exist? Do you think any subtle or celestial beings exist? How about Off World Beings? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.21/1010 - Release Date: 9/15/2007 7:54 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion between mantras and deities in meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Over the years I have heard an argument professed by some former TM > meditators who stopped practicing because they claimed they were > deceived about the "meaning" of mantra-s. I have also seen > similar declarations put forth by various disputant webrunners wishing > to dissuade anyone from beginning any form of mantra meditation with > roots in India. > > > > The fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god > an assertion also put forth by many Indian nationals and ex-patriots. > Therefore, the conclusion is that a mantra encapsulates a method for > worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from > practitioners. >> Belief is gods is silly. OffWorld
