[FairfieldLife] RE: Just when you thought the world couldn#39;t get any stranger...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought religion in the US couldn't get more insane
http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/02/zombie-mohamed-attacked-in-Pennselva\ nia1.jpeg turque just send him a fax,email or call http://www.ccpa.net/directory.aspx?EID=101 Mark W. Martin Magisterial District Judge - Cumberland County Pa. Phone: 717.766.4575 Fax: 717.766.2238 Office Hours: Monday - Tuesday, Thursday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Wednesday: 8:30 am - 6:00 pm http://www.therightscoop.com/imam-democracy-is-opposite-of-islam/ pls consider lucky you aren't put to death but capable by trantric means to come back to Judge Martin as turq zombie and sending the right to me making a movie out of it,with the help of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm386/ Roland Emmerich , --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting MohammadJonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-char\ \ ge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/ in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law. The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police. Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a doofus. In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment. Words almost fail. The Washington Post recently reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sharia-law-ban-is-okl\ \ ahomas-proposal-discriminatory-or-useful/2012/01/11/gIQAGFP1qP_blog.html\ \ on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts. The text of the First Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment could not be clearer. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- It does not say unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered. Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam. That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech. It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought religion in the US couldn't get more insane
Well, that's Islam for you. The idiot judge should he removed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting MohammadJonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-char\ ge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/ in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law. The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police. Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a doofus. In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment. Words almost fail. The Washington Post recently reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sharia-law-ban-is-okl\ ahomas-proposal-discriminatory-or-useful/2012/01/11/gIQAGFP1qP_blog.html\ on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts. The text of the First Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment could not be clearer. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- It does not say unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered. Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam. That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech. It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought religion in the US couldn't get more insane
Some might say what's insane is to refer to one exceedingly peculiar ruling by a judge in a lower court case as religion in the U.S., as if the ruling were representative thereof. It almost sounds as if the person who made this reference has a blind, irrational hatred of the United States. Or maybe the person is an expat who has to keep fighting off a yearning to return to the U.S. by wildly exaggerating untoward things that happen here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting MohammadJonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-char\ ge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/ in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law. The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police. Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a doofus. In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment. Words almost fail. The Washington Post recently reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sharia-law-ban-is-okl\ ahomas-proposal-discriminatory-or-useful/2012/01/11/gIQAGFP1qP_blog.html\ on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts. The text of the First Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment could not be clearer. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- It does not say unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered. Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam. That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech. It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought religion in the US couldn't get more insane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fear_of_Freedom http://tinyurl.com/7zvct6r Islam in Europe, Religious Freedom, and the Fear of Globalization http://tinyurl.com/7wt2qcm --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Some might say what's insane is to refer to one exceedingly peculiar ruling by a judge in a lower court case as religion in the U.S., as if the ruling were representative thereof. It almost sounds as if the person who made this reference has a blind, irrational hatred of the United States. Or maybe the person is an expat who has to keep fighting off a yearning to return to the U.S. by wildly exaggerating untoward things that happen here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting MohammadJonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-char\ \ ge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/ in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law. The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police. Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a doofus. In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment. Words almost fail. The Washington Post recently reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sharia-law-ban-is-okl\ \ ahomas-proposal-discriminatory-or-useful/2012/01/11/gIQAGFP1qP_blog.html\ \ on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts. The text of the First Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment could not be clearer. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- It does not say unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered. Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam. That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech. It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought religion in the US couldn't get more insane
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fear_of_Freedom http://tinyurl.com/7zvct6r Islam in Europe, Religious Freedom, and the Fear of Globalization http://tinyurl.com/7wt2qcm Good segue, but I should point out that my intent for posting this article was *not* to start a conversation about Islam. I don't see this judge's actions as all that distinct from other judges and lawmakers in the US. The only difference seems to be the religion they choose to influence -- and possibly overly-influence -- their legal decisions. Just in the last few months we've seen in the US serious runups to an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade (uh...in the name of religion) and attempts on the part of law- makers to restrict access to contraceptives or abortion or even the needed health care provided by Planned Parenthood. All in the name of religion. We've seen the hysteria that greets the very idea of equality, when that equality is expressed by the desire to marry someone of the same sex. Again, pretty much all driven by the dogma of organized religions. I live in the EU. I've seen how a number of countries in the EU run things. I haven't seen religion and the interests of organized religion running much of anything, in any of them. It's only in the Middle East and in the United States that you tend to see that. From a European's point of view, both places still live in the dark ages.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought religion in the US couldn't get more insane
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fear_of_Freedom http://tinyurl.com/7zvct6r Islam in Europe, Religious Freedom, and the Fear of Globalization http://tinyurl.com/7wt2qcm Good segue, but I should point out that my intent for posting this article was *not* to start a conversation about Islam. I don't see this judge's actions as all that distinct from other judges and lawmakers in the US. The only difference seems to be the religion they choose to influence -- and possibly overly-influence -- their legal decisions. Barry forgot to include the word some before other judges and lawmakers. Many if not most of them are fighting the good fight to follow and apply the First Amendment. Just in the last few months we've seen in the US serious runups to an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade (uh...in the name of religion) and attempts on the part of law- makers to restrict access to contraceptives or abortion or even the needed health care provided by Planned Parenthood. We've also seen significant defeats of some of these attempts. All in the name of religion. We've seen the hysteria that greets the very idea of equality, when that equality is expressed by the desire to marry someone of the same sex. Again, Barry forgets to add among some after greets. The fact is that these attempts to restrict abortion and contraception and same-sex marriage are not mainstream, much as those with an irrational hatred of the U.S. would like to pretend they are. Again, pretty much all driven by the dogma of organized religions. We've also seen attempts by rightwingers to pass legislation on the state level barring the use of Sharia, Muslim law, in U.S. courts. The argument against this notion up till now has been that Sharia isn't used in U.S. courts in the first place. So far those attempts to ban something that doesn't exist haven't enjoyed a great deal of success. But on the basis of this nitwit ruling by an addled and ignorant judge, the rightwingers now have a case they can argue is an example of the use of Sharia. Very unfortunate, but almost certain to inspire widespread outrage across the country. Unlike many of the other attempts to impose religious values, there doesn't seem to be any legal way to defeat this ruling, so it may have to stand, unless legal experts can figure out a way to get around the various procedural issues. Interestingly, the outrage will come from across the political spectrum. Rightwingers will claim the judge's ruling demonstrates an increasing Muslim influence in the country that must be resisted at all costs. (Many of these people are convinced Obama is a Muslim.) Those who are not rightwingers will be outraged because no court ruling should ever be influenced by religious belief, no matter what the religion. These people need to be careful to elucidate the distinction between their objections and those of the rightwingers. I live in the EU. I've seen how a number of countries in the EU run things. I haven't seen religion and the interests of organized religion running much of anything, in any of them. It's only in the Middle East and in the United States that you tend to see that. From a European's point of view, both places still live in the dark ages.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sun...@... wrote: the Daniel suicide deal was going to cycle back to some more common sense thinking, it seems to be taking off in the other direction. This tribute by Radhika Schwartz (no relation to Dan) on BATGAP is so far off base(in my opinion) that I'm just at a loss for words. I'm going with Feste's succinct analysis of the whole situation. I don't remember feste's succinct analysis, but mine is, These people are fuckin' NUTS. See for yourself: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/message/4999 There is a passage in this that really strikes me, because as I said at the beginning of this week, my fascination is with the *assumptions* that spiritual seekers assume are true, and then base their lives on and never challenge again. Let's analyze what the *assumption* is in this passage: Daniel made that same pact [give me liberation or I'll kill myself] He said over and over , I have done everything in my power, everything I know how to do to free myself from suffering, from the bonds that are holding me. from this sense of separation ,which is unbearable . Nothing matters to me except freedom. I cant live this way anymore. I am not just saying this. either give me freedom or I will end my life. What is the lack of freedom being spoken of here? Am I wrong in thinking it's LIVING? If this is true, and not just some story that this twif thought up, the person saying this or thinking this has become convinced that LIVING and having an identity is suffering. The only thing the person can conceive of as non-suffering is (IMO, trying to interpret) the state of total transcendence, with nothing left but Self. Anything else is unbearable. I'm sorry, but that's crazy talk. It even contradicts *Maharishi's* teachings, and this twif is trying to glorify it. This is the ultimate nihilism of the drop returns to the ocean personified. Someone who is being represented as feeling that he is suffering because some part of him remains human is being presented as if he was *onto something*. Remember, Daniel is being presented by people as having been somewhat realized, or having achieved at least some aspect of enlightenment. And we're to believe that he perceived *THIS* as suffering? And all because he still had a LIFE, and could walk around and breathe and interact with the world? The fascinating thing for me is that the twif who said this probably thinks it's inspiring. I'm thinking she's fuckin' NUTS.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
On Jun 1, 2010, at 2:21 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: What is the lack of freedom being spoken of here? Am I wrong in thinking it's LIVING? If this is true, and not just some story that this twif thought up, the person saying this or thinking this has become convinced that LIVING and having an identity is suffering. The only thing the person can conceive of as non-suffering is (IMO, trying to interpret) the state of total transcendence, with nothing left but Self. Anything else is unbearable. I'm sorry, but that's crazy talk. It even contradicts *Maharishi's* teachings, and this twif is trying to glorify it. This is the ultimate nihilism of the drop returns to the ocean personified. Someone who is being represented as feeling that he is suffering because some part of him remains human is being presented as if he was *onto something*. Remember, Daniel is being presented by people as having been somewhat realized, or having achieved at least some aspect of enlightenment. And we're to believe that he perceived *THIS* as suffering? And all because he still had a LIFE, and could walk around and breathe and interact with the world? The fascinating thing for me is that the twif who said this probably thinks it's inspiring. I'm thinking she's fuckin' NUTS. She's definitely different, and I would say very lonely. Very few personal relationships. Somehow those skills never materialized, hence the constant need to present oneself as deep and realized. (I mean, there must be *some* reason for all the loneliness and attendant pain, right? Sure beats trying to actually deal with it.) Self-importance/grandiosity on the one side, loneliness/pain on the other. At least that's how I see it. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
The very same thing is what jumped out for me. As I see it, from the perspective of Waking Down Brand Second Birth Awakening, having awoken to my ocean nature makes being a wave/drop a WHOLE lot more fun and easier to deal with. Like Adyashanti describes it, it's a very peaceful, quiet freedom. For me, it's such a huge relief that I can't comprehend someone thinking it's not good enough. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: the Daniel suicide deal was going to cycle back to some more common sense thinking, it seems to be taking off in the other direction. This tribute by Radhika Schwartz (no relation to Dan) on BATGAP is so far off base(in my opinion) that I'm just at a loss for words. I'm going with Feste's succinct analysis of the whole situation. I don't remember feste's succinct analysis, but mine is, These people are fuckin' NUTS. See for yourself: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/message/4999 There is a passage in this that really strikes me, because as I said at the beginning of this week, my fascination is with the *assumptions* that spiritual seekers assume are true, and then base their lives on and never challenge again. Let's analyze what the *assumption* is in this passage: Daniel made that same pact [give me liberation or I'll kill myself] He said over and over , I have done everything in my power, everything I know how to do to free myself from suffering, from the bonds that are holding me. from this sense of separation ,which is unbearable . Nothing matters to me except freedom. I cant live this way anymore. I am not just saying this. either give me freedom or I will end my life. What is the lack of freedom being spoken of here? Am I wrong in thinking it's LIVING? If this is true, and not just some story that this twif thought up, the person saying this or thinking this has become convinced that LIVING and having an identity is suffering. The only thing the person can conceive of as non-suffering is (IMO, trying to interpret) the state of total transcendence, with nothing left but Self. Anything else is unbearable. I'm sorry, but that's crazy talk. It even contradicts *Maharishi's* teachings, and this twif is trying to glorify it. This is the ultimate nihilism of the drop returns to the ocean personified. Someone who is being represented as feeling that he is suffering because some part of him remains human is being presented as if he was *onto something*. Remember, Daniel is being presented by people as having been somewhat realized, or having achieved at least some aspect of enlightenment. And we're to believe that he perceived *THIS* as suffering? And all because he still had a LIFE, and could walk around and breathe and interact with the world? The fascinating thing for me is that the twif who said this probably thinks it's inspiring. I'm thinking she's fuckin' NUTS.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: The very same thing is what jumped out for me. As I see it, from the perspective of Waking Down Brand Second Birth Awakening, having awoken to my ocean nature makes being a wave/drop a WHOLE lot more fun and easier to deal with. Like Adyashanti describes it, it's a very peaceful, quiet freedom. For me, it's such a huge relief that I can't comprehend someone thinking it's not good enough. Similarly, I cannot conceive of anyone clinging to and glorifying the Maharishi-promoted idea that the ultimate goal of life -- having realized 200% of life (transcendent and relative coexisting peace- fully in enlightenment) -- is to at that point die and go back to 100% (transcendent only), as if that were an admirable or a worthy goal, much less the highest goal in life. I think that a lot of my inability to conceive of such a belief system is the same thing that gives me pause with Buddha's supposed First Noble Truth, that Life is suffering. Life is *not* suffering for me. Never has been. Hope that it never will be. Unlike many, I was *never* drawn to meditation and the spiritual path because I felt that my current life was suffering or didn't work. I felt that my life was pretty cool; I was merely looking for ways to make it cooler. Thus when Maharishi talked about his drop returning to the ocean theory of what happens when a realized person dies, I mumbled Bullshit under my breath and ignored it completely and focused on the parts of his teachings that seemed oriented to developing more integration and mastery in one's daily life, and using those skills to interact more *fully* with life. There was never a moment along the Way in which I felt drawn to become a recluse, and reject the relative world. However, there are people who *do* feel that the highest path is to be found in rejecting the rela- tive world. We have a few of them on this forum. One of them (Shankara) founded the order that Maharishi came from. The twif who wrote this letter that Rick reposted seems to be another. While I respect their predilection in life, and their desire to *get out of* that life rather than live it more fully, I'm just never gonna go there. It is not in *my* predilection to do so. My daily life and the enjoyment of it has been *enhanced* by more than 40 years of meditation practice. It's been a marvelous ride. When I die, I hope that the ride goes on for 40 more incarnations, or even more than that. It is difficult for me to conceive of anyone who has missed the magic of life so thoroughly that they'd not only want it to END, and end FOREVER, but think of that as the highest goal of life itself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: The very same thing is what jumped out for me. As I see it, from the perspective of Waking Down Brand Second Birth Awakening, having awoken to my ocean nature makes being a wave/drop a WHOLE lot more fun and easier to deal with. Like Adyashanti describes it, it's a very peaceful, quiet freedom. For me, it's such a huge relief that I can't comprehend someone thinking it's not good enough. Similarly, I cannot conceive of anyone clinging to and glorifying the Maharishi-promoted idea that the ultimate goal of life -- having realized 200% of life (transcendent and relative coexisting peace- fully in enlightenment) -- is to at that point die and go back to 100% (transcendent only), as if that were an admirable or a worthy goal, much less the highest goal in life. I guess I never got the full memo, because mine stopped at 200%. I didn't get the part glorifying death of the body. I think that a lot of my inability to conceive of such a belief system is the same thing that gives me pause with Buddha's supposed First Noble Truth, that Life is suffering. Life is *not* suffering for me. Never has been. Hope that it never will be. Unlike many, I was *never* drawn to meditation and the spiritual path because I felt that my current life was suffering or didn't work. I felt that my life was pretty cool; I was merely looking for ways to make it cooler. I do understand the concept of life is suffering because I did spend decades in egoic aversion to how the I/me story shows up and egoic grasping for fulfillment in the relative world. Which is not to say that there is no longer *any* aversion/grasping going on; it's just no longer the governing force. I do still experience a certain degree of suffering when I allow myself to get caught up in a polarity, like I'm doing with the issue of Dan's suicide. I think what he did was a horrible, cruel, ignoble, selfish act... a giant Fuck You! to the whole community, and because of that, I find these new age hagiographies of him offensive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: I think that a lot of my inability to conceive of such a belief system is the same thing that gives me pause with Buddha's supposed First Noble Truth, that Life is suffering. Life is *not* suffering for me. Never has been. Hope that it never will be. Unlike many, I was *never* drawn to meditation and the spiritual path because I felt that my current life was suffering or didn't work. I felt that my life was pretty cool; I was merely looking for ways to make it cooler. I do understand the concept of life is suffering because I did spend decades in egoic aversion to how the I/me story shows up and egoic grasping for fulfillment in the relative world. Which is not to say that there is no longer *any* aversion/grasping going on; it's just no longer the governing force. I do still experience a certain degree of suffering when I allow myself to get caught up in a polarity, like I'm doing with the issue of Dan's suicide. I think what he did was a horrible, cruel, ignoble, selfish act... a giant Fuck You! to the whole community, and because of that, I find these new age hagiographies of him offensive. I didn't know him, so I can't say one way or another. With Frederick Lenz - Rama, I did, and can. His suicide was a big FUCK YOU, in capital letters -- to his students, to his family, and to the world for not appreciating him in the way he had hoped to become accustomed to. But if you think about it, that's part of the Mythology Of Enlightenment, too. The enlightened just do stuff, much of which is beyond our understanding. But it's all perfect, and we know because the enlightened are *always* perfect, and we know *that* because...uh...because *they* told us so. So if one of them chooses to drop their body like a big turd in the punchbowl of those who love them and care about them, that's just more enlightenment, acting out. I think it's narcissism, acting out. Tantrum yoga.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip I think that a lot of my inability to conceive of such a belief system is the same thing that gives me pause with Buddha's supposed First Noble Truth, that Life is suffering. Life is *not* suffering for me. Never has been. Hope that it never will be. Unlike many, I was *never* drawn to meditation and the spiritual path because I felt that my current life was suffering or didn't work. I felt that my life was pretty cool; I was merely looking for ways to make it cooler. And yet Buddha would have identified the pursuit of ways to make one's life cooler as the very essence of what he called suffering. In other words, in terms of Buddha's central premise about life being suffering, there's no essential difference between the person who seeks enlightenment to escape perceived suffering and the person who seeks it to make his life cooler. The difference is only in the relative misery of the life situations of these two people. In both cases, they are experiencing suffering in that neither is fully satisfied with life *as it is* and feel there must be something *better* to be attained.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
I second that. Well said. I also find myself agreeing with Turq and even Vaj. The surprising thing is that such things have to be said at all. Given the episode with Ravi and now the suicide of one of the BATGAP high fliers, it seems to me that the BATGAP enterprise and the Wednesday night satsangs have been thoroughly discredited. Who would want to listen to a word these people say? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: The very same thing is what jumped out for me. As I see it, from the perspective of Waking Down Brand Second Birth Awakening, having awoken to my ocean nature makes being a wave/drop a WHOLE lot more fun and easier to deal with. Like Adyashanti describes it, it's a very peaceful, quiet freedom. For me, it's such a huge relief that I can't comprehend someone thinking it's not good enough. Similarly, I cannot conceive of anyone clinging to and glorifying the Maharishi-promoted idea that the ultimate goal of life -- having realized 200% of life (transcendent and relative coexisting peace- fully in enlightenment) -- is to at that point die and go back to 100% (transcendent only), as if that were an admirable or a worthy goal, much less the highest goal in life. I guess I never got the full memo, because mine stopped at 200%. I didn't get the part glorifying death of the body. I think that a lot of my inability to conceive of such a belief system is the same thing that gives me pause with Buddha's supposed First Noble Truth, that Life is suffering. Life is *not* suffering for me. Never has been. Hope that it never will be. Unlike many, I was *never* drawn to meditation and the spiritual path because I felt that my current life was suffering or didn't work. I felt that my life was pretty cool; I was merely looking for ways to make it cooler. I do understand the concept of life is suffering because I did spend decades in egoic aversion to how the I/me story shows up and egoic grasping for fulfillment in the relative world. Which is not to say that there is no longer *any* aversion/grasping going on; it's just no longer the governing force. I do still experience a certain degree of suffering when I allow myself to get caught up in a polarity, like I'm doing with the issue of Dan's suicide. I think what he did was a horrible, cruel, ignoble, selfish act... a giant Fuck You! to the whole community, and because of that, I find these new age hagiographies of him offensive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Similarly, I cannot conceive of anyone clinging to and glorifying the Maharishi-promoted idea that the ultimate goal of life -- having realized 200% of life (transcendent and relative coexisting peace- fully in enlightenment) -- is to at that point die and go back to 100% (transcendent only), as if that were an admirable or a worthy goal, much less the highest goal in life. I guess I never got the full memo, because mine stopped at 200%. I didn't get the part glorifying death of the body. Didn't exist. The ultimate goal of life, having realized 200 percent of life, is to *live* in that 200 percent for as long as one has left. Good grief. What was Perfect Health about if not to prolong life?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: snip I do still experience a certain degree of suffering when I allow myself to get caught up in a polarity, like I'm doing with the issue of Dan's suicide. I think what he did was a horrible, cruel, ignoble, selfish act... a giant Fuck You! to the whole community Alex, might I suggest that while some in the community may feel that they've been fucked by Daniel's suicide, that feeling is *theirs*, and was not necessarily Daniel's intention? I didn't know Daniel and am not part of the community, so I can't speak to any of this directly. But I do recall very vividly having felt suicidal many years ago, pre-TM, when I experienced clinical depression for some months. Those suicidal feelings were as selfish as it's possible to have, but they involved zero anger toward or desire to take revenge on anybody. There was no question in my mind that I was 100 percent responsible for my own pain, as well as for my weakness in being unable to tolerate that pain, such that all I wanted was some way to end it. I was incredibly fortunate that the depression, whatever had caused it (not even my therapists could figure it out), lifted in relatively short order and never recurred. If it had been more prolonged, I might well not be here today. Again, I have no idea whether that was Daniel's situation, but unless he explicitly *said* he intended his suicide as a Fuck You! to the community, it may not make sense to assume that he did as if it were established fact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: snip I do still experience a certain degree of suffering when I allow myself to get caught up in a polarity, like I'm doing with the issue of Dan's suicide. I think what he did was a horrible, cruel, ignoble, selfish act... a giant Fuck You! to the whole community Alex, might I suggest that while some in the community may feel that they've been fucked by Daniel's suicide, that feeling is *theirs*, and was not necessarily Daniel's intention? Absolutely. In fact, I'd wager it wasn't intention. However, I still think the action itself has an inherent fuck you quality to it, regardless of the intention behind it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
Right, but the Batgap forum has been useful to expose them. But right from square one I'm still trying to figure out: The Awakened: I'm Enlightened and my individuality has dissolved ...So my question is: how is an interview possible without an individual: at least a body/mind talking, or somebody posting the statement.? If there's no individual can we assume that the person in her entirety has vanished: poof - no longer to exist; and a phoney surrogate is masquerading as the Awakened One? Could the imposter be Jim Carrey, or perhaps John Malkovich? ... Sorry, but this vanishing of the individuality crap doesn't make sense. Not even the Dalai Lama makes such statements. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 fest...@... wrote: I second that. Well said. I also find myself agreeing with Turq and even Vaj. The surprising thing is that such things have to be said at all. Given the episode with Ravi and now the suicide of one of the BATGAP high fliers, it seems to me that the BATGAP enterprise and the Wednesday night satsangs have been thoroughly discredited. Who would want to listen to a word these people say? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: The very same thing is what jumped out for me. As I see it, from the perspective of Waking Down Brand Second Birth Awakening, having awoken to my ocean nature makes being a wave/drop a WHOLE lot more fun and easier to deal with. Like Adyashanti describes it, it's a very peaceful, quiet freedom. For me, it's such a huge relief that I can't comprehend someone thinking it's not good enough. Similarly, I cannot conceive of anyone clinging to and glorifying the Maharishi-promoted idea that the ultimate goal of life -- having realized 200% of life (transcendent and relative coexisting peace- fully in enlightenment) -- is to at that point die and go back to 100% (transcendent only), as if that were an admirable or a worthy goal, much less the highest goal in life. I guess I never got the full memo, because mine stopped at 200%. I didn't get the part glorifying death of the body. I think that a lot of my inability to conceive of such a belief system is the same thing that gives me pause with Buddha's supposed First Noble Truth, that Life is suffering. Life is *not* suffering for me. Never has been. Hope that it never will be. Unlike many, I was *never* drawn to meditation and the spiritual path because I felt that my current life was suffering or didn't work. I felt that my life was pretty cool; I was merely looking for ways to make it cooler. I do understand the concept of life is suffering because I did spend decades in egoic aversion to how the I/me story shows up and egoic grasping for fulfillment in the relative world. Which is not to say that there is no longer *any* aversion/grasping going on; it's just no longer the governing force. I do still experience a certain degree of suffering when I allow myself to get caught up in a polarity, like I'm doing with the issue of Dan's suicide. I think what he did was a horrible, cruel, ignoble, selfish act... a giant Fuck You! to the whole community, and because of that, I find these new age hagiographies of him offensive.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought....
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of yifuxero Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:30 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just when you thought Right, but the Batgap forum has been useful to expose them. But right from square one I'm still trying to figure out: The Awakened: I'm Enlightened and my individuality has dissolved ...So my question is: how is an interview possible without an individual: at least a body/mind talking, or somebody posting the statement.? Answer: have you listened to any of the interviews? No one I have interviewed has said their individuality has dissolved, and I have often railed against than notion. If there's no individual can we assume that the person in her entirety has vanished: poof - no longer to exist; and a phoney surrogate is masquerading as the Awakened One? Could the imposter be Jim Carrey, or perhaps John Malkovich? ... Sorry, but this vanishing of the individuality crap doesn't make sense. Not even the Dalai Lama makes such statements. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , feste37 fest...@... wrote: I second that. Well said. I also find myself agreeing with Turq and even Vaj. The surprising thing is that such things have to be said at all. Given the episode with Ravi and now the suicide of one of the BATGAP high fliers, it seems to me that the BATGAP enterprise and the Wednesday night satsangs have been thoroughly discredited. Who would want to listen to a word these people say? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: The very same thing is what jumped out for me. As I see it, from the perspective of Waking Down Brand Second Birth Awakening, having awoken to my ocean nature makes being a wave/drop a WHOLE lot more fun and easier to deal with. Like Adyashanti describes it, it's a very peaceful, quiet freedom. For me, it's such a huge relief that I can't comprehend someone thinking it's not good enough. Similarly, I cannot conceive of anyone clinging to and glorifying the Maharishi-promoted idea that the ultimate goal of life -- having realized 200% of life (transcendent and relative coexisting peace- fully in enlightenment) -- is to at that point die and go back to 100% (transcendent only), as if that were an admirable or a worthy goal, much less the highest goal in life. I guess I never got the full memo, because mine stopped at 200%. I didn't get the part glorifying death of the body. I think that a lot of my inability to conceive of such a belief system is the same thing that gives me pause with Buddha's supposed First Noble Truth, that Life is suffering. Life is *not* suffering for me. Never has been. Hope that it never will be. Unlike many, I was *never* drawn to meditation and the spiritual path because I felt that my current life was suffering or didn't work. I felt that my life was pretty cool; I was merely looking for ways to make it cooler. I do understand the concept of life is suffering because I did spend decades in egoic aversion to how the I/me story shows up and egoic grasping for fulfillment in the relative world. Which is not to say that there is no longer *any* aversion/grasping going on; it's just no longer the governing force. I do still experience a certain degree of suffering when I allow myself to get caught up in a polarity, like I'm doing with the issue of Dan's suicide. I think what he did was a horrible, cruel, ignoble, selfish act... a giant Fuck You! to the whole community, and because of that, I find these new age hagiographies of him offensive.
