[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. I wish I still had my Keanu connection and could forward him your comment, Alex. He would just love it, and laugh his socks off. Although straight, he was more than aware of his popularity in the gay community, and even used it -- in his Southern Boy way -- to protect his long-time girlfriend from paparazzi and other celebrity stalkers. He carefully never denied any of the rumors of his gayness in the press, instead cultivating them to 1) increase his audience, and 2) throw paparazzi off the trail. Smart dude, with more than his fair share of spiritual exper- iences under his belt. He really wasn't a bad choice to play the young Buddha IMO. I just wish he was a better actor, and could have externalized the feelings he really had inside about enlight- enment and such things better.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Ok, you're toast. Let the withdrawal begin! I would say from the posts I see here and the amount of posting some folks do have an Internet addiction. I think it is becoming quite common these days though not wholly recognized (too much money to be made off of it). Ironic if those most awake are the most addicted. Not so ironic if awake is more an expression of manic behavior. (and dark nights the depression part of the cycle) The manic depression suggestion seems particularly apt IMO. That's what it's always felt like to me. I've never had any issues with Jim and Rory when they're just posting their blissy experiences; more power to them for doing so. It's the *followups* that seem to be the issue. They post something blissy, someone doesn't buy it, or its accompanying claim of 'way high states of consciousness, and the manic part of the cycle begins. Post after post after post, defending the original post and the *image* of themselves as enlightened. THAT is the part that doesn't ring true to me (along with some of their pronounce- ments about what the path to their kinda enlight- enment must be for others). It all sounds a lot to me like an ego defending itself, which doesn't fit in well with their claims that they don't have one any more. It's the cognitive dissonance of the claims vs. the behavior that's the issue, not the content of their rare posts when they're *not* caught in a gotta-defend-myself-against-this-criticism- or-disbelief cycle. Those standalone, reportage of what it's like to be me posts are often charming and sweet; the gotta-defend posts provide a *counterpoint* to that that is hard to ignore. In a way, it's like watching the abuse cycle in a father who is stuck in it. I love you kids...you mean the world to me. WHACK! SLAP! I love you kids...don't misunderstand that I just whacked you upside the head. WHACK! Bottom line for me, before dropping the subject, is that their walk rarely matched their talk.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Vaj wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. Dying in the dark night? Samadhi is death, and I'm sure more than a few here have experienced this, but not everyone has long, drawn out dark nights. And there's nothing more boring on this list than speculations about enlightenment. :D Yes I knowBUT please let me tell you about mine! :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:23 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, you're toast. Let the withdrawal begin! I would say from the posts I see here and the amount of posting some folks do have an Internet addiction. I think it is becoming quite common these days though not wholly recognized (too much money to be made off of it). Ironic if those most awake are the most addicted. Not so ironic if awake is more an expression of manic behavior. (and dark nights the depression part of the cycle) One of the issues with siddhis (as a negative path) is when certain nadis are activated they can do precisely what you are hinting at New Morn: a neurochemical roller coaster ride. According to Joan Harrigan and her master from the Saraswati order, this is a well known pattern in those with certain styles of kundalini unfoldment. What was interesting to me was that they not only recognized this issue and it's underlying cause (from a yogic perpspective) but the texts which guide their tradition (the sat-chakra-nirupana, etc.) even though quite old, seem to be aware of the neurochemical ups-and-downs. Once I get home later, I'll post the relevant section in Joan's work which describes this yogic disorder.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Vaj wrote: Dying in the dark night? Samadhi is death, and I'm sure more than a few here have experienced this, but not everyone has long, drawn out dark nights. And there's nothing more boring on this list than speculations about enlightenment. :D Yes I knowBUT please let me tell you about mine! :-) This strikes me as more of a real insight than it is a snippy remark. :-) That's really the whole *problem* with discussing subjective experiences of enlightenment or the enlightenment process -- they're subjective. They are just the experiences that *one person* had with the enlightenment process and, because others might have *different* experiences, might not be relatable to by others, much less be some kind of roadmap for them. It strikes me that describing one's personal exper- iences of realization or enlightenment are a lot like telling someone about the powerful dream you had last night. You woke up from the dream still reeling from the profundity it had for you; it was a kind of revelation. And so you sit down over coffee or tea with a friend and try to tell them about the dream you are still so caught up in. The problem is, when this happens you are often SO caught up in it that you don't notice that your friend's eyes glazed over after 20 seconds and that they're sitting there politely pretending to listen to you while really thinking, When will this END? :-) To some extent, I perceive a similar problem when it comes to trying to relate experiences of enlight- enment to others. I've been around the spiritual block enough to know that there are a HUGE variety of experiences that people talk about and attach the term realization or enlightenment to. Some of them I can relate to my own experiences, some I cannot. The ones I can relate to are at times interesting and/or useful to me. The ones I can't relate to in any way tend to make my eyes glaze over. And I don't think I'm alone in this reaction. I mean, if you were to be sat down over a cup of coffee and tea and forced to listen to Shankara's tales of his personal experiences with enlighten- ment, they'd be kinda different than if Milarepa had sat down opposite you. Or Chogyam Trungpa. Or the Sixth Dalai Lama. Milarepa would be filtering his subjective experiences of enlight- enment through his personal history of being a badass siddha and a murderer; Trungpa through his personal history of being a womanizer and a drunk; and the Sixth Dalai Lama just a womanizer and a rebel who wanted no *part* of the role they'd cast him in. Could you relate to their experiences, if yours had been more along the lines of Shankara's, or those of some other sweet saint? And yet all of them *might* have been enlightened. So now consider the problem of listening to the descriptions of enlightenment across the Internet, coming from people we've never even met. For all I know, they *might* be enlightened. But if their tales of *their* subjective experiences of the enlightenment process don't map to mine, then either the result is going to be boredom or a sense of cognitive dissonance, not the imparting of useful information. Me, I'm comfortable with the idea that pretty much everyone who has ever had the long-term experience of realization or enlightenment has gotten there their own Way, and that the subjective experience of both the path that took them to where they had always already been and what life looked like once they got there could be completely different. Given 100 enlightened beings, I would expect to hear 100 *different* stories, 100 *different* sets of experiences. And yet, in tradition after tradition, in teacher after teacher, the language they use when discussing enlightenment to others tends to be along the same lines as if they were discussing one of their dreams. They merely assume that the way that *they* exper- ienced things is the way that others will experience them. They don't *understand* when the eyes of people who have never experienced a dark night glaze over when they start talking about theirs as if it's a universal truth, a step that everyone has to go through on the pathway to enlightenment. It's as if in the early excited, gotta tell every- body stages of realization or enlightenment, the newness of the experience is still overwhelming for the people trying to sit people down and lecture them about what it's like, just as it would be if they were trying to relate a dream. They're still so overwhelmed by their own experience that they don't get that they're not conveying anything useful or meaningful to the people they're lecturing to. Maybe over time the enlightenment or realization settles in and they can find some way of pointing a finger at it that enables everyone who listens to look in the same direction for what it's pointing to. I hope so. But I sure know that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. And ignorance is bliss, I'd say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. And ignorance is bliss, I'd say. Huh? I don't understand your comment. With what part of that light-hearted exchange are you taking issue?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:23 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Ok, you're toast. Let the withdrawal begin! I would say from the posts I see here and the amount of posting some folks do have an Internet addiction. I think it is becoming quite common these days though not wholly recognized (too much money to be made off of it). Ironic if those most awake are the most addicted. Not so ironic if awake is more an expression of manic behavior. (and dark nights the depression part of the cycle) One of the issues with siddhis (as a negative path) is when certain nadis are activated they can do precisely what you are hinting at New Morn: a neurochemical roller coaster ride. According to Joan Harrigan and her master from the Saraswati order, this is a well known pattern in those with certain styles of kundalini unfoldment. What was interesting to me was that they not only recognized this issue and it's underlying cause (from a yogic perpspective) but the texts which guide their tradition (the sat-chakra-nirupana, etc.) even though quite old, seem to be aware of the neurochemical ups-and-downs. Once I get home later, I'll post the relevant section in Joan's work which describes this yogic disorder. Which verse in the Holy Bible would be your preferred treatment for this condition Vaj ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. And ignorance is bliss, I'd say. Huh? I don't understand your comment. With what part of that light-hearted exchange are you taking issue? No issue at all. Quote from Matrix.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
On Dec 5, 2007, at 9:49 PM, new.morning wrote: But having one's perspective flip out may explain some things. And if there is no doer, what is left but reaction. (oh yes, God's Will) (Not to be confused with God's willie, thats another topic.) Some dark nights may be depression -- low, or easily quelched, serotonin and dopamine levels. Some awakened / dark night behaviors appears similar to manic-depressive cycles. If samadhi is death, the perhaps we should have called it Transcendental Suicide. A big draw for Sylvia Plath and Goth chicks. That would be an interesting mix among the drama queens. Do some have Boogie Nights instead of Dark Nights? Seeing FFL as a forum to argue with those who have a different perspective sort of explains a lot. Seeing futility in others views, and Perfection in one's own, perhaps is a dark night. Here's a style of meditational disorder seen in someone who has a vajra-nadi awakening, often precipitated by practices involving siddhis or magical practices: When a person with a rising through Vajra nadi is attracted to and excited by something, Kundalini Shakti rises and activates brain centers, which improves brain function but is followed by neurotransmitter deficits. Due to the instability of a rising through Vajra nadi, there are fluctuations in the experiences the person has. At times they may be brilliant and at others despondent, depending on the current location of Kundalini Shakti in Vajra nadi. Fluctuations may be precipitated by stressors or inspirations or may seem to vary of their own accord, cycling at varying speeds. Grandiosity and ego inflation contrast with the inevitable crash. Some men, in particular, with risings through Vajra nadi feel they do not function well without sex or substances due to the neurotransmitter deficiency caused by their rising, which is temporarily increased with these behaviors. To assuage the discomfort of the more difficult experiences, the person may turn to substance abuse, sexual indulgence, and other forms of acting out and driven behavior. These behaviors may become habitual coping strategies leading to obsessive-compulsive behaviors and addictions. In addition, the person may have a fascination for the occult, as occult methods would more easily yield skills in a person with a rising through Vajra nadi. Adherence to an ethical code thereby becomes more difficult. They may also become greatly attached to their talent and fall into despair when the muse mysteriously leaves. Vajra rising people can be marvelously creative and insightful and tragically afflicted with egoism and insatiable drives that undermine their success and survival. If a person with a rising through Vajra nadi works to remain spiritually focused and moderate in living, however, their symptoms can be blessedly less remarkable, and they can more easily achieve a diversion. Healthy, disciplined spiritual living always helps a Deflected rising. Here the term spiritual is defined as virtuous and devotional, without fascination for special abilities or psychic, healing, astral, or occult skills or interventions and with a devotional acknowledgement of a Higher Power. Spiritual paths, including twelve step programs, emphasize the importance of these qualities. When there is disinterest in phenomena and surrender to the Higher Power, spiritual life can blossom, and a new, balanced source of endorphins becomes available. Joan Harrigan, Kundalini Vidya
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. And ignorance is bliss, I'd say. Huh? I don't understand your comment. With what part of that light-hearted exchange are you taking issue? No issue at all. Quote from Matrix. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. And ignorance is bliss, I'd say. Huh? I don't understand your comment. With what part of that light-hearted exchange are you taking issue? No issue at all. Quote from Matrix. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM Cool, thanks! I only watched the movie once, and that was a long time ago.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
Rory, don't go. I'd like a real conversation with you. I think at the moment, for instance, that you are my grandfather. At least you are a glass through which I see the man who raised me. And if you look at the mathematical proof recently presented in this forum, then the probability that you were/are/will be NOT my grandfather is zero, zip, zilch. You're it! Proof. Poof!!??!! See?? Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you leave, I'd consider it a very great loss. Angela Angela, I love You; You know where to find me :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you leave, I'd consider it a very great loss. Angela Angela, I love You; You know where to find me :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Jim and Rory exceeded their posting limits (Jim � 55; Rory, 56). I�ve blocked their posting privileges and will restore them next Tuesday night. Welcome back, guys. Go forth and sin no more. Thanks, Alex! My apologies, all, for overposting. I too relied on the evidently all-too-unreliable Yahoo advanced search, which repeatedly assured me I had posted only in the mid-20's, when the actual count must have been at least 25 higher by then. When I thought I was still safely under 35, I was actually at 56. It looks as though e-mail or hand tallies are the only ways to go here. The forced time-out has shown me, though, that there really is no common ground here on FFL -- the fundamentally paradoxical Knowledge or Unknowing remaining when all beliefs are discarded, is consistently taken here by those who have not done this work, as simply another fundamentalist belief. Understandable, but evidently a waste of time to discuss further. Might as well stick to movies and martial arts and other subjects within the Matrix :-) So could you unsubscribe me, please? So long, and thanks for all the fish! *L*L*L*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
If you leave, I'd consider it a very great loss. Angela Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Jim and Rory exceeded their posting limits (Jim � 55; Rory, 56). I�ve blocked their posting privileges and will restore them next Tuesday night. Welcome back, guys. Go forth and sin no more. Thanks, Alex! My apologies, all, for overposting. I too relied on the evidently all-too-unreliable Yahoo advanced search, which repeatedly assured me I had posted only in the mid-20's, when the actual count must have been at least 25 higher by then. When I thought I was still safely under 35, I was actually at 56. It looks as though e-mail or hand tallies are the only ways to go here. The forced time-out has shown me, though, that there really is no common ground here on FFL -- the fundamentally paradoxical Knowledge or Unknowing remaining when all beliefs are discarded, is consistently taken here by those who have not done this work, as simply another fundamentalist belief. Understandable, but evidently a waste of time to discuss further. Might as well stick to movies and martial arts and other subjects within the Matrix :-) So could you unsubscribe me, please? So long, and thanks for all the fish! *L*L*L* Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: So could you unsubscribe me, please? You are free to unsubscribe yourself via the website, but you're subscribed with the no email option, so there's not much point to unsubscribing unless you have a need to be unable to post to FFL. I think the point of unsubscribing was an chance to declare that guys like me are stuck in the matrix and Rory is not. I thought we had gotten beyond spiritual oneupsmanship in our discussions together. In fact the point of many of our discussion was this very topic. Apologizing for over posting while delivering this backhanded put down was uncool IMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: So could you unsubscribe me, please? You are free to unsubscribe yourself via the website, but you're subscribed with the no email option, so there's not much point to unsubscribing unless you have a need to be unable to post to FFL. I think the point of unsubscribing was an chance to declare that guys like me are stuck in the matrix and Rory is not. I thought we had gotten beyond spiritual oneupsmanship in our discussions together. Exactly. In fact the point of many of our discussion was this very topic. Apologizing for over posting while delivering this backhanded put down was uncool IMO. But par for the course. It sounds like Jim might not be back either, but he sent a message to FF-Lifers from another list: Thanks Rick-- Not much to say over there, though. IMO it is not a conducive environment for discussing spiritual development, which is my sole topic of interest these days, and why I joined FFL in the first place. Not much to be accomplished engaging in the same old yes it is, no it isn't exchanges. All the best to all on FFL! All of these hystrionics rather than simply admit that their egos got so carried away defending them- selves that they forgot how to count to 50. Life is much easier when one doesn't have to jump through hoops like this trying to defend one's rep as realized. Obviously, people do and say silly things when they get locked into that cycle.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So could you unsubscribe me, please? You are free to unsubscribe yourself via the website, but you're subscribed with the no email option, so there's not much point to unsubscribing unless you have a need to be unable to post to FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
I may be misjudging this, but I’m sensing a “I’m taking my football and going home” reaction in Rory’s and Jim’s desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it’s their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, “I’m quitting altogether. I didn’t want to play this game anyway.” No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.14/1171 - Release Date: 12/4/2007 7:31 PM
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
I don't think my posts to Rory were knee-jerk reactions. Of course it is possible that Rory and Jim are enlightened. Even if we do not believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment, it is still a theoretical possibility that such a state could exist. Would it change your politics if it did? Whether they were enlightened or not, they were not very successful in communicating that fact to the rest of us, though Rory was better at it than Jim. It was a matter of tone, more than anything--more lightness of tone in Rory. So the question is, can such a state be communicated and if so, how? Can words make a day for us? I say they can, but there do also need to be willing ears. Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:28 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. You may be right, and in fairness to them, I havent been following the discussions very carefully lately. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.14/1171 - Release Date: 12/4/2007 7:31 PM Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I can see how it would look that way, Rick, but with the time-out I just realized I am spending waaay too much time and attention here, and I just can't afford it. I tried unsubscribing via email with no result, and was hoping that actually being off the list would be a good way to quit this addiction cold-turkey. It has been an immense lot of fun, and I am really grateful to you and to everyone here, but the cost/benefit ratio has simply gotten too out of hand.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. Dying in the dark night? Samadhi is death, and I'm sure more than a few here have experienced this, but not everyone has long, drawn out dark nights. Vaj makes an excellent point IMO. There seems to be an assumption on the part of both Jim and Rory that because they went through a period they refer to as their dark night, everyone has to do so. There seems to be a further assumption that anyone who questions their claim of not only permanent realization but the upper ranges of it is to be looked down upon because they're obviously still going through their own dark night. As Vaj said, more than a few of us here have had our own realization experiences. We are *not* disbelievers in enlightenment. Been there, done that. It's a real thing. Despite how we have been characterized, it has never been our intention to pooh-pooh the existence of enlightenment. What I pooh-pooh every so often is *claims* of enlightenment by those whose pronouncements about that the pathway to enlightenment must be preceded by a dark night just don't strike us as accurate. I'm sorry, but I didn't have to pay my dues in some dark night to have experiences of realization. They just popped into a pretty happy and fortunate life and made it even more happy and fortunate. I know others whose experience is similar. Some are Buddhists who, like me, managed to stumble upon experiences of enlightenment -- some fleeting, some less so -- but never experienced Buddha's first noble truth, that life is suffering. It really wasn't, for me. Or for them. We *didn't* have to go through any real dark night of the soul to get there. For us, it was more like one moment we're enjoying a pretty happy unenlightened life, and the next moment we're enjoying a pretty happy enlightened life -- with no real periods suffering on either side of the equation. As Lao-tsu said, From wonder into wonder life will open. For me it's pretty much all been wonder. So it's really tough for me to swing behind the assumption that everyone has to go through this dark night shit. Having to go through one isn't some kind of badge of honor; it's just how your particular path twisted. Other people's paths might be twisted in other ways.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I can see how it would look that way, Rick, but with the time-out I just realized I am spending waaay too much time and attention here, and I just can't afford it. I tried unsubscribing via email with no result, and was hoping that actually being off the list would be a good way to quit this addiction cold-turkey. Ok, you're toast. Let the withdrawal begin!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think my posts to Rory were knee-jerk reactions. Of course it is possible that Rory and Jim are enlightened. Even if we do not believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment, it is still a theoretical possibility that such a state could exist. Would it change your politics if it did? Whether they were enlightened or not, they were not very successful in communicating that fact to the rest of us, though Rory was better at it than Jim. Then why is it that neither you nor anyone else here have mustered half the sweetness as Jim in his posts ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:28 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back! --- In HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. You may be right, and in fairness to them, I haven't been following the discussions very carefully lately. You didn't miss much. It's back to films and american politics as usual.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: So could you unsubscribe me, please? You are free to unsubscribe yourself via the website, but you're subscribed with the no email option, so there's not much point to unsubscribing unless you have a need to be unable to post to FFL. I think the point of unsubscribing was an chance to declare that guys like me are stuck in the matrix and Rory is not. I thought we had gotten beyond spiritual oneupsmanship in our discussions together. In fact the point of many of our discussion was this very topic. Apologizing for over posting while delivering this backhanded put down was uncool IMO. It sounds like Jim might not be back either, but he sent a message to FF-Lifers from another list: Thanks Rick-- Not much to say over there, though. IMO it is not a conducive environment for discussing spiritual development, which is my sole topic of interest these days, and why I joined FFL in the first place. Not much to be accomplished engaging in the same old yes it is, no it isn't exchanges. All the best to all on FFL! Actually I was responding solely to Rick...In any case not much to say these days. All the best, and Happy Holidays to everyone!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. Dying in the dark night? Samadhi is death, and I'm sure more than a few here have experienced this, but not everyone has long, drawn out dark nights.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:28 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back! --- In HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. You may be right, and in fairness to them, I haven’t been following the discussions very carefully lately. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.14/1171 - Release Date: 12/4/2007 7:31 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
I hate wasting another post on you, Rory, but I hope you understand that I consider your departure a great loss relatively speaking only. You will never be lost to me. Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you leave, I'd consider it a very great loss. Angela Angela, I love You; You know where to find me :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
---True. Unless one has acquired a Rainbow Light Body, even Rory is stuck in the matrix. Evolution basically is DNA. A quantum leap into the next evolutionary stage must incorporate a significant change in the nature of of DNA. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: So could you unsubscribe me, please? You are free to unsubscribe yourself via the website, but you're subscribed with the no email option, so there's not much point to unsubscribing unless you have a need to be unable to post to FFL. I think the point of unsubscribing was an chance to declare that guys like me are stuck in the matrix and Rory is not. I thought we had gotten beyond spiritual oneupsmanship in our discussions together. In fact the point of many of our discussion was this very topic. Apologizing for over posting while delivering this backhanded put down was uncool IMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
TurquoiseB wrote: There seems to be an assumption on the part of both Jim and Rory that because they went through a period they refer to as their dark night, everyone has to do so. There seems to be a further assumption that anyone who questions their claim of not only permanent realization but the upper ranges of it is to be looked down upon because they're obviously still going through their own dark night. As Vaj said, more than a few of us here have had our own realization experiences. We are *not* disbelievers in enlightenment. Been there, done that. It's a real thing. Despite how we have been characterized, it has never been our intention to pooh-pooh the existence of enlightenment. If there is such a state as enlightenment, you could probably cite a scientific, double-blind study that proves that there is an enlightened state and an associated physiological state. But, you probably don't even know if the state you experienced is an enlightened state or just a mental state of dissassociation. You've often said that TMers are brainwashed. So, the state you were in could have just been self-hypnosis. What I pooh-pooh every so often is *claims* of enlightenment by those whose pronouncements about that the pathway to enlightenment must be preceded by a dark night just don't strike us as accurate. So, this is your *claim* of enlightenment. What would be the different between your enlightened state and Rory or Jim's? I'm sorry, but I didn't have to pay my dues in some dark night to have experiences of realization. They just popped into a pretty happy and fortunate life and made it even more happy and fortunate. I know others whose experience is similar. Some are Buddhists who, like me, managed to stumble upon experiences of enlightenment -- some fleeting, some less so -- but never experienced Buddha's first noble truth, that life is suffering. It really wasn't, for me. Or for them. We *didn't* have to go through any real dark night of the soul to get there. For us, it was more like one moment we're enjoying a pretty happy unenlightened life, and the next moment we're enjoying a pretty happy enlightened life -- with no real periods suffering on either side of the equation. As Lao-tsu said, From wonder into wonder life will open. For me it's pretty much all been wonder. So it's really tough for me to swing behind the assumption that everyone has to go through this dark night shit. Having to go through one isn't some kind of badge of honor; it's just how your particular path twisted. Other people's paths might be twisted in other ways.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. Dying in the dark night? Samadhi is death, and I'm sure more than a few here have experienced this, but not everyone has long, drawn out dark nights. Vaj makes an excellent point IMO. There seems to be an assumption on the part of both Jim and Rory that because they went through a period they refer to as their dark night, everyone has to do so. There seems to be a further assumption that anyone who questions their claim of not only permanent realization but the upper ranges of it is to be looked down upon because they're obviously still going through their own dark night. As Vaj said, more than a few of us here have had our own realization experiences. We are *not* disbelievers in enlightenment. Been there, done that. It's a real thing. Despite how we have been characterized, it has never been our intention to pooh-pooh the existence of enlightenment. Are you sure *anybody* has characterized you as pooh-poohing the existence of enlightenment? What I pooh-pooh every so often is *claims* of enlightenment by those whose pronouncements about that the pathway to enlightenment must be preceded by a dark night just don't strike us as accurate. I didn't get the impression either Jim or Rory was saying any such thing. Nor, for that matter, did I get that this is what you were criticizing them for. I thought they were talking about surrender, letting go of ignorance. snip I know others whose experience is similar. Some are Buddhists who, like me, managed to stumble upon experiences of enlightenment -- some fleeting, some less so -- but never experienced Buddha's first noble truth, that life is suffering. Life is suffering doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a dark night experience, first of all. And second, the usual understanding of Buddha's Life is suffering is that Buddha was defining ignorance relative to enlightenment. If you've led a relatively happy life, you may not even realize you were suffering in this sense until you're enlightened, in other words. The second noble truth, of course, is that suffering originates in attachment. Since nothing in life is permanent, if you're attached to anything, you will suffer to some degree, because what you're attached to won't last. I mean, this is pretty basic stuff, you know, Buddhism 101.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: So could you unsubscribe me, please? You are free to unsubscribe yourself via the website, but you're subscribed with the no email option, so there's not much point to unsubscribing unless you have a need to be unable to post to FFL. I think the point of unsubscribing was an chance to declare that guys like me are stuck in the matrix and Rory is not. I thought we had gotten beyond spiritual oneupsmanship in our discussions together. In fact the point of many of our discussion was this very topic. Apologizing for over posting while delivering this backhanded put down was uncool IMO. It sounds like Jim might not be back either, but he sent a message to FF-Lifers from another list: Thanks Rick-- Not much to say over there, though. IMO it is not a conducive environment for discussing spiritual development, which is my sole topic of interest these days, and why I joined FFL in the first place. Not much to be accomplished engaging in the same old yes it is, no it isn't exchanges. All the best to all on FFL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. Dying in the dark night? Samadhi is death, and I'm sure more than a few here have experienced this, but not everyone has long, drawn out dark nights. But having one's perspective flip out may explain some things. And if there is no doer, what is left but reaction. (oh yes, God's Will) (Not to be confused with God's willie, thats another topic.) Some dark nights may be depression -- low, or easily quelched, serotonin and dopamine levels. Some awakened / dark night behaviors appears similar to manic-depressive cycles. If samadhi is death, the perhaps we should have called it Transcendental Suicide. A big draw for Sylvia Plath and Goth chicks. That would be an interesting mix among the drama queens. Do some have Boogie Nights instead of Dark Nights? Seeing FFL as a forum to argue with those who have a different perspective sort of explains a lot. Seeing futility in others views, and Perfection in one's own, perhaps is a dark night.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I can see how it would look that way, Rick, but with the time-out I just realized I am spending waaay too much time and attention here, and I just can't afford it. I tried unsubscribing via email with no result, and was hoping that actually being off the list would be a good way to quit this addiction cold-turkey. Ok, you're toast. Let the withdrawal begin! I would say from the posts I see here and the amount of posting some folks do have an Internet addiction. I think it is becoming quite common these days though not wholly recognized (too much money to be made off of it).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
Vaj wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. Dying in the dark night? Samadhi is death, and I'm sure more than a few here have experienced this, but not everyone has long, drawn out dark nights. And there's nothing more boring on this list than speculations about enlightenment. :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, you're toast. Let the withdrawal begin! I would say from the posts I see here and the amount of posting some folks do have an Internet addiction. I think it is becoming quite common these days though not wholly recognized (too much money to be made off of it). Ironic if those most awake are the most addicted. Not so ironic if awake is more an expression of manic behavior. (and dark nights the depression part of the cycle)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
So many times your posts are my favorite I read all day, New. This is one of them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. I didn't see it that way. What I got from their posts is that taking a break let them reflect and see how futile it is for them to argue with those who haven't died in the dark night and had their perspective flipped inside out. My guess is that they're looking at the status quo knee-jerk reactions to today's posts and thinking they made the right choice in bowing out. Dying in the dark night? Samadhi is death, and I'm sure more than a few here have experienced this, but not everyone has long, drawn out dark nights. But having one's perspective flip out may explain some things. And if there is no doer, what is left but reaction. (oh yes, God's Will) (Not to be confused with God's willie, thats another topic.) Some dark nights may be depression -- low, or easily quelched, serotonin and dopamine levels. Some awakened / dark night behaviors appears similar to manic-depressive cycles. If samadhi is death, the perhaps we should have called it Transcendental Suicide. A big draw for Sylvia Plath and Goth chicks. That would be an interesting mix among the drama queens. Do some have Boogie Nights instead of Dark Nights? Seeing FFL as a forum to argue with those who have a different perspective sort of explains a lot. Seeing futility in others views, and Perfection in one's own, perhaps is a dark night.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be misjudging this, but I'm sensing a I'm taking my football and going home reaction in Rory's and Jim's desire to drop out because they were shut down for a week. Not that it's their football, but somehow they seem miffed. As if they were asked to take a timeout from the game and their response was, I'm quitting altogether. I didn't want to play this game anyway. Lurk: Flanagan's back in two days max. Rory five to seven. For our benefit
