[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Geezer, What a great Ry Cooder story! It reminds me of Eric Clapton using a bunch of tiny Pignose amps on one of his albums for the sound he wanted. The difference is that I read the story and you actually hang out with guys like Ry Cooder! I busked with my cigar box guitar yesterday and it was a huge hit. Because it is quieter it drew the people closer to my money box! I alternated using it and my Tricone. I never plug any of my guitars in directly, I use condenser mikes off the guitar in clubs. My CBG doesn't have a pickup which is what the guy in that video who built it was using. I will post a video of me playing this thing soon. It was so amazing to see a crowd form around this tiny primitive instrument without an amp. It was a scene from Vicksburg in the 20's. Here is a guy with the more delicate and, for me, more interesting sound of guitar without the pickup: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kA1FdvwWhm4 I got a real North Mississippi hill county voodoo rhythm going in open G# and played harp with it. I will definitely include one cut on my next CD with this guitar, the sound is hypnotic. Turq, your neighbor would love this thing. It is a roots man's wet dream! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > Hey Geezer, > > > > Check out this site for the guy who built my new cigar box guitar! > > The thing is so Delta and primitive I am loving life. Tuned to open G > > on 4 strings. This is the old, old school! > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjagitsch/PhotoAlbum63.html > > If you scroll down you can see a video of him playing one. > > > Whoa Curtis! Those things look and sound unholy as hell! That's not a sound you're gonna > find at any NAAM show. > > Some time back I worked on several sessions w/ Ry Cooder. I asked if there was anything > he needed...he said " 20 gallon galvanized trash can". I said, OK fine figuring he was > planning on generating a lot of trash. (With Ry you never know.) We got the trash can, he > shoved it up against his amp, taped down the handles, took the mics we had carefully > placed on the amp, and pointed them about 2 inches from the center of the (now lying on > its side) trash can and began to play. I'm here to tell you it was a ragged ass thing of > beauty, like a harmongus resonator. > > No digital effect can make that sound and none can match those cigar box jobbies either! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > Hey Geezer, > > > > Check out this site for the guy who built my new cigar box guitar! > > The thing is so Delta and primitive I am loving life. Tuned to > > open G > > on 4 strings. This is the old, old school! > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjagitsch/PhotoAlbum63.html > > If you scroll down you can see a video of him playing one. > > Whoa Curtis! Those things look and sound unholy as hell! That's > not a sound you're gonna find at any NAAM show. > > Some time back I worked on several sessions w/ Ry Cooder. I asked > if there was anything he needed...he said " 20 gallon galvanized > trash can". I said, OK fine figuring he was planning on generating > a lot of trash. (With Ry you never know.) We got the trash can, he > shoved it up against his amp, taped down the handles, took the mics > we had carefully placed on the amp, and pointed them about 2 inches > from the center of the (now lying on its side) trash can and began > to play. I'm here to tell you it was a ragged ass thing of beauty, > like a harmongus resonator. > > No digital effect can make that sound and none can match those > cigar box jobbies either! Great story, Geez. But now you've got me hook, line and sinker. I *have* to know what album that sound is on, and which cut(s). And Curtis, thanks very much for posting this. Can you imagine trying to find neat birthday gifts for my next-door neighbor? Well, next year is a done deal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Geezer, > > Check out this site for the guy who built my new cigar box guitar! > The thing is so Delta and primitive I am loving life. Tuned to open G > on 4 strings. This is the old, old school! > http://homepage.mac.com/bjagitsch/PhotoAlbum63.html > If you scroll down you can see a video of him playing one. > Whoa Curtis! Those things look and sound unholy as hell! That's not a sound you're gonna find at any NAAM show. Some time back I worked on several sessions w/ Ry Cooder. I asked if there was anything he needed...he said " 20 gallon galvanized trash can". I said, OK fine figuring he was planning on generating a lot of trash. (With Ry you never know.) We got the trash can, he shoved it up against his amp, taped down the handles, took the mics we had carefully placed on the amp, and pointed them about 2 inches from the center of the (now lying on its side) trash can and began to play. I'm here to tell you it was a ragged ass thing of beauty, like a harmongus resonator. No digital effect can make that sound and none can match those cigar box jobbies either!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "It was intellectually dishonest of you to pretend > this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia > entry. Here's the first paragraph:" > > OMG foiled again! How could I have known that you would be able to > find Wikipedia from my reference to it and get the whole article! > > So clever, so resourceful, and oh so "clarificatory"! > > My nefarious ends are only delayed, not thwarted by your brilliant > tactic of following provided references. Now that I know this is > part of your skills I will cover my tracks much better. All intellectually dishonest mockery, Curtis. > BTW some topics have more than one way to look at them other > then your way and the "intellectually dishonest way". Absolutely true. But each instance needs to be examined on its own terms.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
"It was intellectually dishonest of you to pretend this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia entry. Here's the first paragraph:" OMG foiled again! How could I have known that you would be able to find Wikipedia from my reference to it and get the whole article! So clever, so resourceful, and oh so "clarificatory"! My nefarious ends are only delayed, not thwarted by your brilliant tactic of following provided references. Now that I know this is part of your skills I will cover my tracks much better. BTW some topics have more than one way to look at them other then your way and the "intellectually dishonest way". (all references to the source of this idea deliberately hidden) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > "> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." > > > > Form Wikipedia: > > > > Intellectual dishonesty: > > > > "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are > > often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably > > frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to > > say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on > > conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." > > > > Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. > > Hilarious. An intellectually dishonest definition > of intellectual dishonesty. I'd guess the writer > of that paragraph has been on the receiving end of > accusations of intellectual dishonesty. > > It was intellectually dishonest of you to pretend > this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia > entry. Here's the first paragraph: > > Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be > false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's > deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If > a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet > holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the > person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even > if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. > > (It doesn't have to be "in the face of overwhelming > contrary evidence." It can be used just to gain a > bit of advantage in an argument.) > > "Intellectual dishonesty" is a perfectly legitimate > label for a particular type of tactics in a debate > or argument. It has nothing to do with stupidity or > ignorance, of course; a person can be brilliant and > yet intellectually dishonest. > > And it's not "obfuscatory," it's clarificatory, > because it makes a clear distinction between lying > (knowing misstatement of fact) and an argument > that pretends to be logical but is actually > fallacious. > > Nor is it merely a "rhetorical device," although > it does frame the person so accused in a negative > light. > > By itself, the accusation doesn't mean much; in that > case it *is* just a rhetorical device. But I never > use it in a vacuum; I always specify what it is > about an argument that is intellectually dishonest > and why. > > Well, you've certainly proved my point, Curtis. > Thank you. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can > > > > get her off the view that I am a devious person telling > > > > deliberate untruths for some nefarious end. > > > > > > To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image. > > > > > > An example of same is the way you have phrased your > > > characterization of my view above. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not in my reading of things. Judy often, not always IMO, cuts to the > chase. to the key thing. > > Other times she is off fighting old wars which amuses me, as a > reflection of the human condition and its obscure and hidden, deep > motivations. > > But she does not, generally -- I am sure there are exceptions -- > obfuscate. She slams the point home. From my view, the V factor > obfuscates far more than the J factor. Well said and heartily seconded, New; many thanks. Perfect, ain't it? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
On Jun 30, 2007, at 10:05 PM, authfriend wrote: Well, you've certainly proved my point, Curtis. Your point being that Curtis is obviously very nice, is willing to put up with an enormous amount of crap, and always tries to answer truthfully and clearly? Thank you. Don't thank me, Judy--always glad to help out. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Hey Geezer, Check out this site for the guy who built my new cigar box guitar! The thing is so Delta and primitive I am loving life. Tuned to open G on 4 strings. This is the old, old school! http://homepage.mac.com/bjagitsch/PhotoAlbum63.html If you scroll down you can see a video of him playing one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > "> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." > > > > Form Wikipedia: > > > > Intellectual dishonesty: > > > > "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are > > often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably > > frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to > > say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on > > conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." > > > > Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. > > > > Curtis, the B-day celebrations must truly be over. Judy's back. (Loved her heart-felt > Birthday greetings to you.) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:47 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > "> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." > > > > Form Wikipedia: > > > > Intellectual dishonesty: > > > > "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are > > often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably > > frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to > > say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on > > conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." > > > > Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. > > And also why I use the word "obfuscation" in regards to > Judy's style (or lack thereof). She's the great obfuscator. Translation: Vaj's definition of "obfuscation"-- exposing dishonesty (especially his).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." > > Form Wikipedia: > > Intellectual dishonesty: > > "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are > often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably > frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to > say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on > conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." > > Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. Hilarious. An intellectually dishonest definition of intellectual dishonesty. I'd guess the writer of that paragraph has been on the receiving end of accusations of intellectual dishonesty. It was intellectually dishonest of you to pretend this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia entry. Here's the first paragraph: Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. (It doesn't have to be "in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence." It can be used just to gain a bit of advantage in an argument.) "Intellectual dishonesty" is a perfectly legitimate label for a particular type of tactics in a debate or argument. It has nothing to do with stupidity or ignorance, of course; a person can be brilliant and yet intellectually dishonest. And it's not "obfuscatory," it's clarificatory, because it makes a clear distinction between lying (knowing misstatement of fact) and an argument that pretends to be logical but is actually fallacious. Nor is it merely a "rhetorical device," although it does frame the person so accused in a negative light. By itself, the accusation doesn't mean much; in that case it *is* just a rhetorical device. But I never use it in a vacuum; I always specify what it is about an argument that is intellectually dishonest and why. Well, you've certainly proved my point, Curtis. Thank you. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can > > > get her off the view that I am a devious person telling > > > deliberate untruths for some nefarious end. > > > > To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image. > > > > An example of same is the way you have phrased your > > characterization of my view above.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." > > Form Wikipedia: > > Intellectual dishonesty: > > "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are > often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably > frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to > say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on > conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." > > Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. > Curtis, the B-day celebrations must truly be over. Judy's back. (Loved her heart-felt Birthday greetings to you.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:47 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > "> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > > > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > > > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > > > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." > > > > Form Wikipedia: > > > > Intellectual dishonesty: > > > > "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are > > often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably > > frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to > > say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on > > conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." > > > > Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. > > > And also why I use the word "obfuscation" in regards to Judy's style > (or lack thereof). She's the great obfuscator. Not in my reading of things. Judy often, not always IMO, cuts to the chase. to the key thing. Other times she is off fighting old wars which amuses me, as a reflection of the human condition and its obscure and hidden, deep motivations. But she does not, generally -- I am sure there are exceptions -- obfuscate. She slams the point home. From my view, the V factor obfuscates far more than the J factor.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:47 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: "> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." Form Wikipedia: Intellectual dishonesty: "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. And also why I use the word "obfuscation" in regards to Judy's style (or lack thereof). She's the great obfuscator.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
"> To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image." Form Wikipedia: Intellectual dishonesty: "The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on conversations similar to accusations of ignorance." Me: Yeah, that about sums it up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can get her off > > the view that I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for > > some nefarious end. > > To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate > untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual > dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the > preservation and/or promotion of your self-image. > > An example of same is the way you have phrased your > characterization of my view above. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can get her off > the view that I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for > some nefarious end. To clarify: My view is that when you tell deliberate untruths, or (more often) simply engage in intellectual dishonesty, the "nefarious ends" in question are the preservation and/or promotion of your self-image. An example of same is the way you have phrased your characterization of my view above.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sounds very fine, Jim. Thanks for your reply. > > Marek > Any time- you have a good heart Marek, and that comes through energetically in your written words. Not the words themselves, but the energy that places them on the page. Not a trivial thing, for an energy signature of a pure heart can only be gained by someone genuinely doing good for many years, erasing any stain from their pure heart. You are a rare soul.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > Hey c'mon, play fair! Otherwise I can't judge you and decide what > you > > are! You keep expanding and contracting and disappearing so > rapidly, > > there is no thing I can equate with your enlightened state!! What > > gives? i demand YOU STAND STILL! Oooops, there I go again! > > > > Reminds me of an album I found just when I was on the cusp of > > liberation, called "Lost At Last". Boy did that feel good, for my > ego > > was dying, just absolutely dying to die! Ha-Ha! And from that > > perspective I was dying to get lost- Hey! Get Lost I said to myself- > > > and then a great thing happened, as I listened to my Self, my self > got > > lost, or not and I found my self again, only this time it was > slippery > > as a greased pole at a carnival and no matter how much I tried, and > > thought about all the different ways I could recapture my self, > > nothing worked and so I resigned myself to being everywhere at > once, > > or at least a point value, set amongst the infinity of myself. And > > there I was, until I wasn't, or was again. Something like that?:- ) > > *lol* Yes, exactly; nothing like tHAt! :-) > > (Who hid the HA inside the tease, anyway!?) > > *L*L*L* > The same one that hid the "ease" insde the tease...:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey c'mon, play fair! Otherwise I can't judge you and decide what you > are! You keep expanding and contracting and disappearing so rapidly, > there is no thing I can equate with your enlightened state!! What > gives? i demand YOU STAND STILL! Oooops, there I go again! > > Reminds me of an album I found just when I was on the cusp of > liberation, called "Lost At Last". Boy did that feel good, for my ego > was dying, just absolutely dying to die! Ha-Ha! And from that > perspective I was dying to get lost- Hey! Get Lost I said to myself- > and then a great thing happened, as I listened to my Self, my self got > lost, or not and I found my self again, only this time it was slippery > as a greased pole at a carnival and no matter how much I tried, and > thought about all the different ways I could recapture my self, > nothing worked and so I resigned myself to being everywhere at once, > or at least a point value, set amongst the infinity of myself. And > there I was, until I wasn't, or was again. Something like that?:-) *lol* Yes, exactly; nothing like tHAt! :-) (Who hid the HA inside the tease, anyway!?) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I > wouldn't want to be taken for Gospel. (I don't take *Gospel* for > Gospel, if it comes to that. :-) ) Hey c'mon, play fair! Otherwise I can't judge you and decide what you are! You keep expanding and contracting and disappearing so rapidly, there is no thing I can equate with your enlightened state!! What gives? i demand YOU STAND STILL! Oooops, there I go again! Reminds me of an album I found just when I was on the cusp of liberation, called "Lost At Last". Boy did that feel good, for my ego was dying, just absolutely dying to die! Ha-Ha! And from that perspective I was dying to get lost- Hey! Get Lost I said to myself- and then a great thing happened, as I listened to my Self, my self got lost, or not and I found my self again, only this time it was slippery as a greased pole at a carnival and no matter how much I tried, and thought about all the different ways I could recapture my self, nothing worked and so I resigned myself to being everywhere at once, or at least a point value, set amongst the infinity of myself. And there I was, until I wasn't, or was again. Something like that?:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems to me that the states of mind people refer to as states of > "enlightenment" are shifts of awareness that are more fundamental than > a compulsion to return to a favorite emotion (outrage for example). *lol* Yes, I wouldn't equate enlightenment with a compulsion to return to a favorite emotion (or the opposite, either), but then again, I don't particularly see Judy that way. I *do* see her intellect as generally crystal-clear, and that she won't tolerate "fuzzy" thinking. I think some of what you're seeing as outrage may be her belief that you must be "choosing" to think fuzzily, i.e. to consciously lie, when IMO you almost certainly aren't. I know I wasn't consciously "choosing to lie" when I would make anti-MMY or anti-TMO statements; I was just wounded, angry and resentful and I tended to make baseless and illogical generalizations when coming from that space. (Perhaps it's that sacred DNA in the base of my spine; I'm predominantly Irish.) God knows, my mind has *never* been well trained in logic, so you can imagine the shambles I was (unconsciously) in when coming from a victimized space! And now, the joke is, I can do nothing *but* lie! (Not true.) Whenever I make a statement, the opposite instantly surfaces to be appreciated as well (Not true.) :-) > I'm quite sure I'm in over my head in a discussion of your state of > awareness, *I* am in over my head in a discussion of my state of awareness...:-) Let's just say I place no ultimate importance on the state my awareness happens to be in right now, as it's just another state. Dang! Even That's a lie. It's the ONLY state. Liar! Liar! It's BEAUTIFULLY ordinary. Nope. My pants are on fire! (Who was it who said Brahman was slippery? Oh yeah, me. And MMY. He also said *why* it was slippery: That the intellect, Buddhi, becomes so clear as to be virtually non-existent, revealing the substratum of the Atman, the Self, everywhere. And the Self is utterly indescribable, containing and transcending all opposites. That is pretty good, for a lie! :-) ) I *do* currently like to place a lot of attention on the particles in my Being, as they love the lovin' and it gets the juices flowing to turn this burg into a hopping, popping, psychedelic paradise. Love is the ultimate particle accelerator, baby! HOOah! :-) >but isn't your experience a shift concerning your > relationship of your identity (Self) with your thoughts and feelings? I don't know. I could say Yes, but I could just as truthfully say No. All of the above, none of the above. I can't be pinned down, even by saying I can't. Because I can! Not! Can! Not! :-) > This should give you more choices concerning where you put your > attention within your thoughts and feelings options, right? I don't know. (Do so! Do not!) Should it? (Shouldn't it?) Was that what they promised? Maybe I should ask for my money back? My selves are too virtual to be described, I think. Or don't think. :-) >Although > you may not be choosing the state itself and its perspective, it seems > to me that it is different from a person feeling compelled to think a > certain thought or harbor a specific feeling. The lack of choice may > be the same, but the outcome is almost the exact opposite. So oppositely opposite as to be the same, maybe. I only know that I am in no condition to ascribe to another what is not in myself, as I am only seeing those values in those particles by virtue of the essences in my own Being -- which is why I may be entirely wrong on my appraisal of Barry and Steve; I am only operating from and creating on the resonance(s) of memory. In fact in one sense I am absolutely wrong, for I *know* that ultimately there is only the radiantly Indescribable Self singing in each particle of each of Us. >I think > Turq's speculation of a lack of self-reflective ability may be on the > mark. *lol* Then I would say, enjoy that reality between you! It's not predominant among my realities or perceptions, but so what? I just thought I'd give a minority opinion. To me she is a Dharmapala, but I wouldn't want to be taken for Gospel. (I don't take *Gospel* for Gospel, if it comes to that. :-) ) > I appreciate that you are open to discussing your subjective > experiences. Although I might use different language to describe my > own internal experience, the subject fascinates me whatever the > language used. And I appreciate and respect *your* openness, Curtis! It's been a real pleasure getting to know you here. Thank you. :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For a long time I've been of the belief that there are > few people on earth who would benefit more from the > practice of mindfulness than Judy Stein. Reading Vaj's > post about the recent experiments in which mindfulness > changed brain function reinforced that belief for me. > > Take the example used in that well-written article. When > a person sees an angry face -- even if it's flashed at > them subliminally, too fast for them to recognize con- > sciously -- the brain reacts by going into fight or > flight response. For some reason I do not understand, > Judy has a tendency to see angry faces where I do not > perceive them to be. Bingo! I think this is the crux of it right here. Back around 2002 when I yet had a good bit of unresolved anger toward MMY and the TMO, but was not particularly aware of that anger on the surface, and thought I was making logical, helpful, reasonable posts, Judy often ate me for lunch. :-) Since then, over time, I've paid a lot of attention to my old MMY/TMO wounds, and watched a lot of them heal. This doesn't mean I have assumed or resumed a true-believer stance w/r/t MMY and the TMO. My "program" has continued to dissolve and morph beyond all recognition and description, becoming entirely spontaneous and self-directed, moment to moment. While I enjoy some aspects of Stapathya-veda, I chose to buy a great Victorian house with a lovely south entrance, only 4 blocks from FF's square. I moved to FF (again) primarily because of the love and companionship I feel for the Wednesday-night Satsangers; I had no abiding interest in MUM, the TMO or the Domes. I don't use MAPI herbs or Ayurveda. I'm not a great fan of Jyotish, although I've seen in the hands of an intuitive practitioner it can work healing wonders, like any other richly complex language. (My wife and I were most impressed with Shastri- ji.) I don't particularly believe or disbelieve in MMY's old SofC model, having in turn (1) swallowed it whole, (2) seen it as a fairy- tale construct of a single indivisible SofC, (3) had fun dividing C up into other models of my own, and (4) been blown away last year by far deeper understanding of, and congruence between, my models and MMY's. I have no real opinion on the Rajas and the Raams, viewing them as an odd and occasionally-interesting drama that doesn't at the moment have much to do with me. Having been there myself (and in a deeper sense, being there now, as what I see is all "me" :-)), I can understand your puzzlement at her seeing angry faces where you do not. From where I stand now, though, it often appears that you actually *aren't* thinking clearly or logically, but are instead making comments from a specific wounded/resentful feeling-level which make perfect sense to -- and only to -- another person sharing that wounded/resentful feeling- level: That in fact you are communicating primarily to confirm your "ain't MMY awful" feeling-level (this I notice far more consistently and far more "loudly" in Barry and Steve than in you, Curtis). This may not at all be *your* truth, and I'm OK with that. I know that in truth, you are none of the above -- you are only and completely indescribably beautiful, radiant Being. And again, lest anyone think I am criticising anyone here, please know that I am not. It is, indeed, all me, and all indescribably perfect. I'm just describing me as clearly as I can in this moment. Most of all, I feel happy and blessed to know you all! :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > >I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for > > > some nefarious end. > > Well, duh! :) > > > I'd like that too Curtis. Any time you're out my way, give me a buzz. > > Is that legal in your state? :) Pretty much. And I'm betting that Curtis can provide great buzz!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > >I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for > > > some nefarious end. > > Well, duh! :) I am completely outraged at your deception and demand an apology! BTW, Maria's end is not nefarious, although I might be tempted to tell deliberate untruths for a peek. > > > I'd like that too Curtis. Any time you're out my way, give me a buzz. > > Is that legal in your state? :) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
I wonder if Judy's Truth is not a whole lot like my Enlightenment: So > self-evident, crystal-clear, that it is virtually impossible to believe > other's *can't* see it and operate naturally from that place...? > It seems to me that the states of mind people refer to as states of "enlightenment" are shifts of awareness that are more fundamental than a compulsion to return to a favorite emotion (outrage for example). I'm quite sure I'm in over my head in a discussion of your state of awareness, but isn't your experience a shift concerning your relationship of your identity (Self) with your thoughts and feelings? This should give you more choices concerning where you put your attention within your thoughts and feelings options, right? Although you may not be choosing the state itself and its perspective, it seems to me that it is different from a person feeling compelled to think a certain thought or harbor a specific feeling. The lack of choice may be the same, but the outcome is almost the exact opposite. I think Turq's speculation of a lack of self-reflective ability may be on the mark. I appreciate that you are open to discussing your subjective experiences. Although I might use different language to describe my own internal experience, the subject fascinates me whatever the language used. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Hey Geezer, > > > > Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can get her off > > the view that I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for > > some nefarious end. As long as I stay detached from her odd > > accusations I usually enjoy the ride. But the truth is that I would > > much prefer an evening hanging out with you and your music collection! > > Thanks, Curtis, you just gave me a glimmer :-) To me, it often appears > as if people are being willfully ignorant, choosing to play dumb w/r/t > their own obvious a priori Enlightenment, and the self-evident > perfection of all that is. Judy showed me otherwise a year or two ago, > and I now know that it doesn't seem that way to them, and that they are > *not* (from their POV) consciously choosing to ignore the self-evident. > I wonder if Judy's Truth is not a whole lot like my Enlightenment: So > self-evident, crystal-clear, that it is virtually impossible to believe > other's *can't* see it and operate naturally from that place...? > > *L*L*L* >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > >I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for > > some nefarious end. Well, duh! :) > I'd like that too Curtis. Any time you're out my way, give me a buzz. Is that legal in your state? :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Geezer, > > Thanks for the voice of reason man. I hear ya bro. Richard is an odd > one as his last reply to my post attests. I enjoyed writing my first > response, but lost interest when he replied with the usual crazy > making dance. I am pretty sure he can't help it. > > Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can get her off > the view that I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for > some nefarious end. As long as I stay detached from her odd > accusations I usually enjoy the ride. But the truth is that I would > much prefer an evening hanging out with you and your music collection! I'd like that too Curtis. Any time you're out my way, give me a buzz. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > > Judy: > > > > > > > First, you should apologize for the bogus equation > > > > you drew between what Jim said and what fundies/ > > > > Catholics say about those who believe differently > > > > going to hell, instead of dishonestly trying yet > > > > again to evade accountability for it. > > > > > > Well at least I tried. I don't think we share the same perspective > > > on your role here on FFL Judy. > > > > > Curtis, your posts are nearly always insightful and entertaining. > Keep 'em coming. But trying > > to have meaningful dialog with Judy or WillyTex is a waste of your > valuable time IMO. Tex is > > just nuts. Judy riffs endlessly (and circuitously) on a theme of > smarmy condescension that > > generally ends up (as it did this time) with her calling the person > who disagrees with her > > "dishonest" and a "liar". It's pathetic and boring. > > > > You've got way better things to do with all that talent than wasting > time on either party. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Commentaries on both Curtis' and Marek's posts: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marek, > Marek, > > This is the kind of post that makes posting here worth it for me. Hear, hear. > It is an exploration of how we view our spiritual experiences from > different, but equally, personally valuable perspectives. > > I appreciate your trying to communicate with Judy. I think we both > share the frustrating feeling that we can make ourselves understood > by her this time, only to get thwarted in the end. Tell me about it. > I think that beneath her seething contempt for me is a person who > shares plenty of our perspectives on knowledge. But admitting that > would require her to put down the hater-aid, and that is too high > a price. (sorry Turq, I used the term first!) It's a great term. You invented it, you get to use it first. :-) > The weirdest thing for me is that I rarely understand her POV on > what I said that sets her off. This is so common that I find it > comical. All the drama about demanding an apology instead of just > giving a counter opinion is just a power play, I get that. But why > focus on an insignificant part of the content of the belief and > derail any discussion of the ideas? For a long time I've been of the belief that there are few people on earth who would benefit more from the practice of mindfulness than Judy Stein. Reading Vaj's post about the recent experiments in which mindfulness changed brain function reinforced that belief for me. Take the example used in that well-written article. When a person sees an angry face -- even if it's flashed at them subliminally, too fast for them to recognize con- sciously -- the brain reacts by going into fight or flight response. For some reason I do not understand, Judy has a tendency to see angry faces where I do not perceive them to be. And when she sees them, because she not only has never practiced mindfulness but has an utter disdain for it, she reacts. She doesn't seem to be able to *not* react. I find that sad, but as a former meditation teacher even more it makes me wonder if there *is* anything that can "get through" that reactivity. So far the answer is No, but I've only been trying for 12 years. Give it time. :-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > > > > Curtis, your analysis (below) is excellent; well discussed and > > nails my own longterm and evolving experiences and beliefs re > > Maharishi and TM. Maharishi's foibles or shortcomings, to > > whatever extent they may exist, don't concern me anymore (or at > > least not very much) and I still love meditation and puja (for > > the reasons that were given to me initially because the reasons > > that Maharishi gave then seem to comport with my experience now) > > but it seems as if the universe is a closed system and you can't > > really go wrong no matter what you do or don't do, at least in > > the long run. It's not even that all roads lead to Rome, but > > that there isn't anything except Rome. Or so it feels to me. Me, too. It makes it difficult for me to believe that my particular 'hood in Rome is any better than anybody else's 'hood. > > And for what it's worth, you strike me as one of the most > > intellectually honest and open to discussion individuals > > that post here and I share your chagrin whenever anyone > > claims differently. What he said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Geezer, > Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can get her off > the view that I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for > some nefarious end. As long as I stay detached from her odd > accusations I usually enjoy the ride. But the truth is that I would > much prefer an evening hanging out with you and your music collection! Thanks, Curtis, you just gave me a glimmer :-) To me, it often appears as if people are being willfully ignorant, choosing to play dumb w/r/t their own obvious a priori Enlightenment, and the self-evident perfection of all that is. Judy showed me otherwise a year or two ago, and I now know that it doesn't seem that way to them, and that they are *not* (from their POV) consciously choosing to ignore the self-evident. I wonder if Judy's Truth is not a whole lot like my Enlightenment: So self-evident, crystal-clear, that it is virtually impossible to believe other's *can't* see it and operate naturally from that place...? *L*L*L*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
On Jun 28, 2007, at 9:51 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > Appreciating our different conclusions has been a healing experience > for me here on FFL. I idealistically believed that this kind of > discussion was possible. You and others here prove that the most > idealist view I have about people communicating ideas can be real. > Jai Guru FFL! Rick set the tone and we are reaping the rewards. > Thanks Rick. Group hug! :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Hey Geezer, Thanks for the voice of reason man. I hear ya bro. Richard is an odd one as his last reply to my post attests. I enjoyed writing my first response, but lost interest when he replied with the usual crazy making dance. I am pretty sure he can't help it. Judy is a different story. There is no way that I can get her off the view that I am a devious person telling deliberate untruths for some nefarious end. As long as I stay detached from her odd accusations I usually enjoy the ride. But the truth is that I would much prefer an evening hanging out with you and your music collection! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > Judy: > > > > > First, you should apologize for the bogus equation > > > you drew between what Jim said and what fundies/ > > > Catholics say about those who believe differently > > > going to hell, instead of dishonestly trying yet > > > again to evade accountability for it. > > > > Well at least I tried. I don't think we share the same perspective > > on your role here on FFL Judy. > > > Curtis, your posts are nearly always insightful and entertaining. Keep 'em coming. But trying > to have meaningful dialog with Judy or WillyTex is a waste of your valuable time IMO. Tex is > just nuts. Judy riffs endlessly (and circuitously) on a theme of smarmy condescension that > generally ends up (as it did this time) with her calling the person who disagrees with her > "dishonest" and a "liar". It's pathetic and boring. > > You've got way better things to do with all that talent than wasting time on either party. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
geezerfreak wrote: > Tex is just nuts. > Right; you spent six months on TTC sitting in a Broyhill and then years mixing up and passing out the kool-aid, charging money for non-sensense syllables, but WillyTex is just nuts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Sounds very fine, Jim. Thanks for your reply. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > > > > Jim, you're correct. I'm pretty confident, too, that no one here > > thinks that you hold the belief that anyone who feels differently > than > > you regarding Guru Dev's and Maharishi's influence on global > > consciousness is somehow doomed. But at the same time, I do think > > that you post condescendingly at times and do characterize Barry > and > > Curtis particularly as 'lessers' that just don't get what it is > that > > you know to be true. That's got to chap the hide. > > > > But it's a 'give as good as you get' type of place here, you know > that > > as well as I do, and some folks are more argumentative than > > diplomatic; points made are often barbed, sometimes they overshoot > the > > mark, feelings get hurt and the cycle starts up again. But it > always > > seems to settle down after awhile. > > > > I'm stoked that you have this great thing with Guru Dev; so totally > > fine in my books and a delight to hear about and admire. I don't > > personally have any problems with the position you hold, either; > only, > > sometimes it sounds like it's being delivered from on high, that's > > all. At least that's what I feel. > > > > Jai Guru Dev > > > > Marek > > > > Hi Marek, and thanks for your response. I appreciate your assessment > of the energy of my posts. I do often match the energy of that which > I am responding to, both positive and negative, gently and more > forcefully. I tend to also write here in a very straightforward way. > The straightforwardness is a "symptom" of the clarity I live. Not to > be confused by rigidity, though I suppose to some it can appear that > way. > > I was for decades a seeker, judging every experience as closer or > further away from the sustained experience of enlightenment that I > had dedicated my life to finding. Not in any formal way-- it just > occurred naturally that way as a process following on from what all > the great teachers said, "find your Self first". I also recognized > that being grounded in the blissful absolute nature of life while > living dynamically was the only hope for me of lasting happiness. > Forgive me if that sounds like a TM brochure, but that is the only > way I know to express it. Unlike many here who have delved deeper > into the terminology of spirituality, my focus has always been > experiential, so I don't know many traditional ways to express > spiritual phenomena. > > Anyway, push came to shove, and one magical day, I felt the last of > my encumberances give way, and achieved my lasting liberation. It > hasn't been all darkness on one side and all light on the other. > There has continued to be an ongoing discovery of deeper and deeper > silence, bliss, and freedom integrated into my daily life. But the > transition from bondage to freedom was unmistakable, the transition > from always seeking to always finding was unique. > > I should also say that I have had transient experiences, including > some with Guru Dev, as you mention, which although a lasting > treasure in my heart, were not indicative of a permanent state of > enlightenment. And this is certainly consistent with everything I > have heard and read- that each of us does, and will, express his or > her enlightenment differently, and that there are no outward signs > of the enlightened man, save someone who is generally balanced and > joyful- though the same might be seen in a brief timeslice of > someone enjoying themselves on a good day. The reality, the timeless > reality is just that, a lasting and permanent freedom within. It > cannot be reliably expressed externally so that others can look at > the surface values of the enlightened one and proclaim, "there, > did'ja see that? He is/isn't enlightened". Though, rest assured, the > experience of a lasting and permanent state is so real that it is > unmistakable, as is the accompanying experience that all of earth, > heaven and hell are available at any moment, and the absence of > boundaries is a natural and moment by moment aspect of an > enlightened existence. So if I come across as delivering my thoughts > from on high, it is again the clarity gained in this wondrous state > of mine that I am blessed to find myself in day and night. Not an > expression of rigidity, but rather ever growing and expanding > wonder, while remaining grounded in my eternal and infinite > enlightenment. > > Cheers.:-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim, you're correct. I'm pretty confident, too, that no one here > thinks that you hold the belief that anyone who feels differently than > you regarding Guru Dev's and Maharishi's influence on global > consciousness is somehow doomed. But at the same time, I do think > that you post condescendingly at times and do characterize Barry and > Curtis particularly as 'lessers' Hey, you forgot the word fools !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --The Spiritual Regeneration of the world will (IMO) be an eventual > occurrence that will pick up steam perhaps - in a few hundred years > or so and then take off at an exponential rate of growth; since > Spirituality feeds on itself, (like evil in that respect). TM will be > the main catalyst for this evolutionary development, and we may look > forward to vast numbers of people in the Hindu and Buddhist > persuasions to begin the practice. > As to the rest of the world: Monothiests (Christians, Jews, and > Muslims), athiests, and agnostics, these are birds of different > stripes who will become receptive to the notion of an impersonalist > Ground of Being that exists as a Substratum of existence (some more > than others); but Christians will have to reconcile this with their > notion of a Personal Deity. Such a reconciliation must take place > since Salvation in the Christian viewpoint - the orthodox, not > Gnostic - has nothing to do whatsoever with yoga, meditation, etc; or > any such works or evolutionary self-development. As the current Pope > has stated on several occasions (He's the former Grand Inquisitor and > should know); Salvation is totally unrelated to Yoga (and by > implication, silent meditative methods); so the Pope has swallowed > the core of St. Paul's Salvation by Grace, through Faith viewpoint. > > But the Pope is no dunce! He's aware of "Transcendence" but has a > mistaken idea about Buddhism. His objection to Buddhism is that > (although it incorporates Transcendence in its body of practices); he > claims it's devoid of "Divine Love" ; i.e. the dualist relationship > between oneself and "God" in the Person of Jesus. > Of course, this isn't true at all. ...but getting back to the topic, > TM indeed will be the main catalyst for a world transformation but > not in the near future. Depends how you define "near future". Perhaps it is much nearer than we think, and many others hope for... "Heaven will walk on earth - in this generation." Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim, you're correct. I'm pretty confident, too, that no one here > thinks that you hold the belief that anyone who feels differently than > you regarding Guru Dev's and Maharishi's influence on global > consciousness is somehow doomed. But at the same time, I do think > that you post condescendingly at times and do characterize Barry and > Curtis particularly as 'lessers' that just don't get what it is that > you know to be true. That's got to chap the hide. > > But it's a 'give as good as you get' type of place here, you know that > as well as I do, and some folks are more argumentative than > diplomatic; points made are often barbed, sometimes they overshoot the > mark, feelings get hurt and the cycle starts up again. But it always > seems to settle down after awhile. > > I'm stoked that you have this great thing with Guru Dev; so totally > fine in my books and a delight to hear about and admire. I don't > personally have any problems with the position you hold, either; only, > sometimes it sounds like it's being delivered from on high, that's > all. At least that's what I feel. > > Jai Guru Dev > > Marek > Hi Marek, and thanks for your response. I appreciate your assessment of the energy of my posts. I do often match the energy of that which I am responding to, both positive and negative, gently and more forcefully. I tend to also write here in a very straightforward way. The straightforwardness is a "symptom" of the clarity I live. Not to be confused by rigidity, though I suppose to some it can appear that way. I was for decades a seeker, judging every experience as closer or further away from the sustained experience of enlightenment that I had dedicated my life to finding. Not in any formal way-- it just occurred naturally that way as a process following on from what all the great teachers said, "find your Self first". I also recognized that being grounded in the blissful absolute nature of life while living dynamically was the only hope for me of lasting happiness. Forgive me if that sounds like a TM brochure, but that is the only way I know to express it. Unlike many here who have delved deeper into the terminology of spirituality, my focus has always been experiential, so I don't know many traditional ways to express spiritual phenomena. Anyway, push came to shove, and one magical day, I felt the last of my encumberances give way, and achieved my lasting liberation. It hasn't been all darkness on one side and all light on the other. There has continued to be an ongoing discovery of deeper and deeper silence, bliss, and freedom integrated into my daily life. But the transition from bondage to freedom was unmistakable, the transition from always seeking to always finding was unique. I should also say that I have had transient experiences, including some with Guru Dev, as you mention, which although a lasting treasure in my heart, were not indicative of a permanent state of enlightenment. And this is certainly consistent with everything I have heard and read- that each of us does, and will, express his or her enlightenment differently, and that there are no outward signs of the enlightened man, save someone who is generally balanced and joyful- though the same might be seen in a brief timeslice of someone enjoying themselves on a good day. The reality, the timeless reality is just that, a lasting and permanent freedom within. It cannot be reliably expressed externally so that others can look at the surface values of the enlightened one and proclaim, "there, did'ja see that? He is/isn't enlightened". Though, rest assured, the experience of a lasting and permanent state is so real that it is unmistakable, as is the accompanying experience that all of earth, heaven and hell are available at any moment, and the absence of boundaries is a natural and moment by moment aspect of an enlightened existence. So if I come across as delivering my thoughts from on high, it is again the clarity gained in this wondrous state of mine that I am blessed to find myself in day and night. Not an expression of rigidity, but rather ever growing and expanding wonder, while remaining grounded in my eternal and infinite enlightenment. Cheers.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Blessed be the peacemakers, Marek. I'll post more tomorrow. But for now, blessed be Marek and your intention to understand all P'sOV. Jim, I wasn't trying to bust your balls. You and I have had more cool discussions than otherwise. My point about beliefs was not a personal attack on you. We may see things differently, but I always get that you are genuine and a person I could enjoy a burger an well concocted Margarita with. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim, you're correct. I'm pretty confident, too, that no one here > thinks that you hold the belief that anyone who feels differently than > you regarding Guru Dev's and Maharishi's influence on global > consciousness is somehow doomed. But at the same time, I do think > that you post condescendingly at times and do characterize Barry and > Curtis particularly as 'lessers' that just don't get what it is that > you know to be true. That's got to chap the hide. > > But it's a 'give as good as you get' type of place here, you know that > as well as I do, and some folks are more argumentative than > diplomatic; points made are often barbed, sometimes they overshoot the > mark, feelings get hurt and the cycle starts up again. But it always > seems to settle down after awhile. > > I'm stoked that you have this great thing with Guru Dev; so totally > fine in my books and a delight to hear about and admire. I don't > personally have any problems with the position you hold, either; only, > sometimes it sounds like it's being delivered from on high, that's > all. At least that's what I feel. > > Jai Guru Dev > > Marek > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > > wrote: > > Jim's experiences seem genuine > > > enough as he relates them, but the extrapolation of his experiences > > > to the belief that Guru Dev and Maharishi represent a unique > > juncture > > > in the world and human affairs is, however sincere, unveriafiable > > and > > > tantamount to similar sectarian beliefs of Christianity or any other > > > religion. > > > > With one significant and important difference that some on FFL cannot > > seem to grasp: When certain sectarian beliefs of Christianity proclaim > > that we can only be saved through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the > > Saviour, there is an unmistakable implication that those that don't > > are somehow less, or doomed. > > > > All I said was that Guru Dev and Maharishi are the catalysts for the > > spiritual regeneration of the world. Period. Unverifiable by each and > > every one of those reading this? Sure. Similar to whether the earth > > revolves around the sun, or the sun revolves around the earth. Also > > unverifiable. > > > > However the thing that is quite different between what I said and its > > comparison to the beliefs of Christian sects is that there is > > absolutely no implication or assertion I have made that anyone who > > doesn't believe this is wrong, or a lesser person, or doomed > > spiritually or otherwise. > > > > It is a significant difference, and yet several on this forum cannot > > decouple this possibility that Guru Dev and Maharishi have brought > > about the spiritual regeneration of the world, from some implication > > that lack of belief in this possibility means that I think they are > > lesser beings in some regard. > > > > Marek, you as a lawyer must surely see the logical inconsistency in > > these few posters' assertion? > > > > I consider this inability to decouple what I said from the stories > > they hold in their heads and hearts as neurotic- in other words, not > > fully in touch with the here and now. Why should that be made to > > appear as anyone else's problem except theirs? It sure ain't mine.:- > > ) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Jim, you're correct. I'm pretty confident, too, that no one here thinks that you hold the belief that anyone who feels differently than you regarding Guru Dev's and Maharishi's influence on global consciousness is somehow doomed. But at the same time, I do think that you post condescendingly at times and do characterize Barry and Curtis particularly as 'lessers' that just don't get what it is that you know to be true. That's got to chap the hide. But it's a 'give as good as you get' type of place here, you know that as well as I do, and some folks are more argumentative than diplomatic; points made are often barbed, sometimes they overshoot the mark, feelings get hurt and the cycle starts up again. But it always seems to settle down after awhile. I'm stoked that you have this great thing with Guru Dev; so totally fine in my books and a delight to hear about and admire. I don't personally have any problems with the position you hold, either; only, sometimes it sounds like it's being delivered from on high, that's all. At least that's what I feel. Jai Guru Dev Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > Jim's experiences seem genuine > > enough as he relates them, but the extrapolation of his experiences > > to the belief that Guru Dev and Maharishi represent a unique > juncture > > in the world and human affairs is, however sincere, unveriafiable > and > > tantamount to similar sectarian beliefs of Christianity or any other > > religion. > > With one significant and important difference that some on FFL cannot > seem to grasp: When certain sectarian beliefs of Christianity proclaim > that we can only be saved through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the > Saviour, there is an unmistakable implication that those that don't > are somehow less, or doomed. > > All I said was that Guru Dev and Maharishi are the catalysts for the > spiritual regeneration of the world. Period. Unverifiable by each and > every one of those reading this? Sure. Similar to whether the earth > revolves around the sun, or the sun revolves around the earth. Also > unverifiable. > > However the thing that is quite different between what I said and its > comparison to the beliefs of Christian sects is that there is > absolutely no implication or assertion I have made that anyone who > doesn't believe this is wrong, or a lesser person, or doomed > spiritually or otherwise. > > It is a significant difference, and yet several on this forum cannot > decouple this possibility that Guru Dev and Maharishi have brought > about the spiritual regeneration of the world, from some implication > that lack of belief in this possibility means that I think they are > lesser beings in some regard. > > Marek, you as a lawyer must surely see the logical inconsistency in > these few posters' assertion? > > I consider this inability to decouple what I said from the stories > they hold in their heads and hearts as neurotic- in other words, not > fully in touch with the here and now. Why should that be made to > appear as anyone else's problem except theirs? It sure ain't mine.:- > ) >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
please check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D7rWLzloOI&NR=1 - Original Message From: tertonzeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:05:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis --The Spiritual Regeneration of the world will (IMO) be an eventual occurrence that will pick up steam perhaps - in a few hundred years or so and then take off at an exponential rate of growth; since Spirituality feeds on itself, (like evil in that respect). TM will be the main catalyst for this evolutionary development, and we may look forward to vast numbers of people in the Hindu and Buddhist persuasions to begin the practice. As to the rest of the world: Monothiests (Christians, Jews, and Muslims), athiests, and agnostics, these are birds of different stripes who will become receptive to the notion of an impersonalist Ground of Being that exists as a Substratum of existence (some more than others); but Christians will have to reconcile this with their notion of a Personal Deity. Such a reconciliation must take place since Salvation in the Christian viewpoint - the orthodox, not Gnostic - has nothing to do whatsoever with yoga, meditation, etc; or any such works or evolutionary self-development. As the current Pope has stated on several occasions (He's the former Grand Inquisitor and should know); Salvation is totally unrelated to Yoga (and by implication, silent meditative methods); so the Pope has swallowed the core of St. Paul's Salvation by Grace, through Faith viewpoint. But the Pope is no dunce! He's aware of "Transcendence" but has a mistaken idea about Buddhism. His objection to Buddhism is that (although it incorporates Transcendence in its body of practices); he claims it's devoid of "Divine Love" ; i.e. the dualist relationship between oneself and "God" in the Person of Jesus. Of course, this isn't true at all. ...but getting back to the topic, TM indeed will be the main catalyst for a world transformation but not in the near future. Last, personal note to you Jim, in view of your previous statement that (true to your Neo-advaitin colors), you have or feel no need to rectify things. Then I countered with a challenge: that if you actually desire the world to be engulfed by a Spiritual transformation, then join with those of us following in the footsteps of Guru Dev and MMY, to help propagate TM around the world to as many people as possible. At this time circumstances are not quite favorable for this endeavor, but that should be no impediment to a full mental commitment. Don't be like the rest of the Neo-Advaitins, saying "I don't know and I don't care". Be committed! If there's to be a world transformation, YOU have to make it happen; and all the other "you's". - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > Jim's experiences seem genuine > > enough as he relates them, but the extrapolation of his experiences > > to the belief that Guru Dev and Maharishi represent a unique > juncture > > in the world and human affairs is, however sincere, unveriafiable > and > > tantamount to similar sectarian beliefs of Christianity or any other > > religion. > > With one significant and important difference that some on FFL cannot > seem to grasp: When certain sectarian beliefs of Christianity proclaim > that we can only be saved through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the > Saviour, there is an unmistakable implication that those that don't > are somehow less, or doomed. > > All I said was that Guru Dev and Maharishi are the catalysts for the > spiritual regeneration of the world. Period. Unverifiable by each and > every one of those reading this? Sure. Similar to whether the earth > revolves around the sun, or the sun revolves around the earth. Also > unverifiable. > > However the thing that is quite different between what I said and its > comparison to the beliefs of Christian sects is that there is > absolutely no implication or assertion I have made that anyone who > doesn't believe this is wrong, or a lesser person, or doomed > spiritually or otherwise. > > It is a significant difference, and yet several on this forum cannot > decouple this possibility that Guru Dev and Maharishi have brought > about the spiritual regeneration of the world, from some implication > that lack of belief in this possibility means that I think they are > lesser beings in some regard. > > Marek, you as a lawyer must surely see the logical inconsistency in > these few posters' assertion? > > I consider t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--The Spiritual Regeneration of the world will (IMO) be an eventual occurrence that will pick up steam perhaps - in a few hundred years or so and then take off at an exponential rate of growth; since Spirituality feeds on itself, (like evil in that respect). TM will be the main catalyst for this evolutionary development, and we may look forward to vast numbers of people in the Hindu and Buddhist persuasions to begin the practice. As to the rest of the world: Monothiests (Christians, Jews, and Muslims), athiests, and agnostics, these are birds of different stripes who will become receptive to the notion of an impersonalist Ground of Being that exists as a Substratum of existence (some more than others); but Christians will have to reconcile this with their notion of a Personal Deity. Such a reconciliation must take place since Salvation in the Christian viewpoint - the orthodox, not Gnostic - has nothing to do whatsoever with yoga, meditation, etc; or any such works or evolutionary self-development. As the current Pope has stated on several occasions (He's the former Grand Inquisitor and should know); Salvation is totally unrelated to Yoga (and by implication, silent meditative methods); so the Pope has swallowed the core of St. Paul's Salvation by Grace, through Faith viewpoint. But the Pope is no dunce! He's aware of "Transcendence" but has a mistaken idea about Buddhism. His objection to Buddhism is that (although it incorporates Transcendence in its body of practices); he claims it's devoid of "Divine Love" ; i.e. the dualist relationship between oneself and "God" in the Person of Jesus. Of course, this isn't true at all. ...but getting back to the topic, TM indeed will be the main catalyst for a world transformation but not in the near future. Last, personal note to you Jim, in view of your previous statement that (true to your Neo-advaitin colors), you have or feel no need to rectify things. Then I countered with a challenge: that if you actually desire the world to be engulfed by a Spiritual transformation, then join with those of us following in the footsteps of Guru Dev and MMY, to help propagate TM around the world to as many people as possible. At this time circumstances are not quite favorable for this endeavor, but that should be no impediment to a full mental commitment. Don't be like the rest of the Neo-Advaitins, saying "I don't know and I don't care". Be committed! If there's to be a world transformation, YOU have to make it happen; and all the other "you's". - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > Jim's experiences seem genuine > > enough as he relates them, but the extrapolation of his experiences > > to the belief that Guru Dev and Maharishi represent a unique > juncture > > in the world and human affairs is, however sincere, unveriafiable > and > > tantamount to similar sectarian beliefs of Christianity or any other > > religion. > > With one significant and important difference that some on FFL cannot > seem to grasp: When certain sectarian beliefs of Christianity proclaim > that we can only be saved through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the > Saviour, there is an unmistakable implication that those that don't > are somehow less, or doomed. > > All I said was that Guru Dev and Maharishi are the catalysts for the > spiritual regeneration of the world. Period. Unverifiable by each and > every one of those reading this? Sure. Similar to whether the earth > revolves around the sun, or the sun revolves around the earth. Also > unverifiable. > > However the thing that is quite different between what I said and its > comparison to the beliefs of Christian sects is that there is > absolutely no implication or assertion I have made that anyone who > doesn't believe this is wrong, or a lesser person, or doomed > spiritually or otherwise. > > It is a significant difference, and yet several on this forum cannot > decouple this possibility that Guru Dev and Maharishi have brought > about the spiritual regeneration of the world, from some implication > that lack of belief in this possibility means that I think they are > lesser beings in some regard. > > Marek, you as a lawyer must surely see the logical inconsistency in > these few posters' assertion? > > I consider this inability to decouple what I said from the stories > they hold in their heads and hearts as neurotic- in other words, not > fully in touch with the here and now. Why should that be made to > appear as anyone else's problem except theirs? It sure ain't mine.:- > ) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jim's experiences seem genuine > enough as he relates them, but the extrapolation of his experiences > to the belief that Guru Dev and Maharishi represent a unique juncture > in the world and human affairs is, however sincere, unveriafiable and > tantamount to similar sectarian beliefs of Christianity or any other > religion. With one significant and important difference that some on FFL cannot seem to grasp: When certain sectarian beliefs of Christianity proclaim that we can only be saved through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Saviour, there is an unmistakable implication that those that don't are somehow less, or doomed. All I said was that Guru Dev and Maharishi are the catalysts for the spiritual regeneration of the world. Period. Unverifiable by each and every one of those reading this? Sure. Similar to whether the earth revolves around the sun, or the sun revolves around the earth. Also unverifiable. However the thing that is quite different between what I said and its comparison to the beliefs of Christian sects is that there is absolutely no implication or assertion I have made that anyone who doesn't believe this is wrong, or a lesser person, or doomed spiritually or otherwise. It is a significant difference, and yet several on this forum cannot decouple this possibility that Guru Dev and Maharishi have brought about the spiritual regeneration of the world, from some implication that lack of belief in this possibility means that I think they are lesser beings in some regard. Marek, you as a lawyer must surely see the logical inconsistency in these few posters' assertion? I consider this inability to decouple what I said from the stories they hold in their heads and hearts as neurotic- in other words, not fully in touch with the here and now. Why should that be made to appear as anyone else's problem except theirs? It sure ain't mine.:- )
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
On Jun 27, 2007, at 3:43 PM, authfriend wrote: (1) About a third of my posts here this week have been positive or at least not unpleasant. (2) Of the negative ones, the great majority were in response to Barry's or Vaj's *unprovoked* attacks on me. In other words, Barry is lying through his teeth again, as well as attacking me one more time without provocation, and bathing himself in the grossest kind of hypocrisy. Is the last observation what passes for positive or "at least not unpleasant" in Movement circles these days? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > Not only did Curtis not come to me in an open,
> > > straightforward manner, the dishonesty of his
> > > response was even greater than that of his
> > > original bogus comparison.
> > >
> > > That comparison was offensive and insulting, a
> > > deliberate attempt at guilt by association.
> > > There were all sorts of comparisons he *could*
> > > have made on the basis you suggest above
> > > ("incomplete information and ignorance") that
> > > would have been entirely unproblematic and
> > > would have made his point a lot more clearly.
> > >
> > > That you *support* him in the comparison he did
> > > make, and in his dishonest responses to my
> > > pointing out how offensive it was, tells me, as
> > > I say, all I need to know about your own
> > > intellectual integrity.
> > >
> > > "May not be 100% congruent," indeed.
> > >
> > > Excuse me while I go take a bath.
> >
> > After 36 -- now 37 -- posts like this in less
> > than four days, I think the people who need
> > a bath are us.
> >
> > Have a good time in limbo, Judy, inflicting
> > your venom on those who have to put up with
> > it between now and Friday midnight. We don't.
>
> I went over accidentally, but I'm going to go
> ahead and increment my sin by one more post
> before I leave for the weekend, to point out
> that:
>
> (1) About a third of my posts here this week have
> been positive or at least not unpleasant.
>
> (2) Of the negative ones, the great majority
> were in response to Barry's or Vaj's *unprovoked*
> attacks on me.
>
> In other words, Barry is lying through his
> teeth again, as well as attacking me one more
> time without provocation, and bathing himself
> in the grossest kind of hypocrisy.
Buh-bye now!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > Not only did Curtis not come to me in an open,
> > straightforward manner, the dishonesty of his
> > response was even greater than that of his
> > original bogus comparison.
> >
> > That comparison was offensive and insulting, a
> > deliberate attempt at guilt by association.
> > There were all sorts of comparisons he *could*
> > have made on the basis you suggest above
> > ("incomplete information and ignorance") that
> > would have been entirely unproblematic and
> > would have made his point a lot more clearly.
> >
> > That you *support* him in the comparison he did
> > make, and in his dishonest responses to my
> > pointing out how offensive it was, tells me, as
> > I say, all I need to know about your own
> > intellectual integrity.
> >
> > "May not be 100% congruent," indeed.
> >
> > Excuse me while I go take a bath.
>
> After 36 -- now 37 -- posts like this in less
> than four days, I think the people who need
> a bath are us.
>
> Have a good time in limbo, Judy, inflicting
> your venom on those who have to put up with
> it between now and Friday midnight. We don't.
I went over accidentally, but I'm going to go
ahead and increment my sin by one more post
before I leave for the weekend, to point out
that:
(1) About a third of my posts here this week have
been positive or at least not unpleasant.
(2) Of the negative ones, the great majority
were in response to Barry's or Vaj's *unprovoked*
attacks on me.
In other words, Barry is lying through his
teeth again, as well as attacking me one more
time without provocation, and bathing himself
in the grossest kind of hypocrisy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not only did Curtis not come to me in an open,
> straightforward manner, the dishonesty of his
> response was even greater than that of his
> original bogus comparison.
>
> That comparison was offensive and insulting, a
> deliberate attempt at guilt by association.
> There were all sorts of comparisons he *could*
> have made on the basis you suggest above
> ("incomplete information and ignorance") that
> would have been entirely unproblematic and
> would have made his point a lot more clearly.
>
> That you *support* him in the comparison he did
> make, and in his dishonest responses to my
> pointing out how offensive it was, tells me, as
> I say, all I need to know about your own
> intellectual integrity.
>
> "May not be 100% congruent," indeed.
>
> Excuse me while I go take a bath.
After 36 -- now 37 -- posts like this in less
than four days, I think the people who need
a bath are us.
Have a good time in limbo, Judy, inflicting
your venom on those who have to put up with
it between now and Friday midnight. We don't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy: > > > First, you should apologize for the bogus equation > > you drew between what Jim said and what fundies/ > > Catholics say about those who believe differently > > going to hell, instead of dishonestly trying yet > > again to evade accountability for it. > > Well at least I tried. To evade accountability for your offensive comparison, yes, you certainly did try. > I don't think we share the same perspective > on your role here on FFL Judy. Oh, so your perspective on my role is that I am not supposed to express my opinion of what someone else has said? Or just of what you have said? Please feel free to elaborate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comment below:
>
> **
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > And for what it's worth, you strike me as one of the most
> > > intellectually honest and open to discussion individuals that
> post
> > > here and I share your chagrin whenever anyone claims
differently.
> >
> > So, Marek, you think it was intellectually honest
> > of Curtis to equate Jim's comment that MMY and Guru
> > Dev revitalized the spiritual momentum of the world
> > with the belief of some Christians that only they
> > will go to heaven and everybody else will go to hell?
> >
> > If so, that tells me all I need to know about
> > *your* intellectual honesty.
> >
>
> **end**
>
> Judy, although Curtis' comparison of Jim's beliefs re Maharishi and
> Guru Dev with extreme dualism of Christian fundamentalism may not
be
> 100% congruent, it does represent (IMO) an honest response to how
> beliefs themselves, no matter how strongly and sincerely held, are
> almost always based on incomplete information and ignorance.
>
> Beliefs represent an emotional attachment to a certain order in the
> world (and beyond), oftentimes based on the individual's own
> experiences, but in the case of religions, frequently based on
> someone else's stated experiences. Jim's experiences seem genuine
> enough as he relates them, but the extrapolation of his experiences
> to the belief that Guru Dev and Maharishi represent a unique
juncture
> in the world and human affairs is, however sincere, unveriafiable
and
> tantamount to similar sectarian beliefs of Christianity or any
other
> religion.
>
> The fact that Curtis came to you in an open, straightforward manner
> even after you had been insulting, and your subsequent dismissive
> responses betray your own emotional dishonesty.
Not only did Curtis not come to me in an open,
straightforward manner, the dishonesty of his
response was even greater than that of his
original bogus comparison.
That comparison was offensive and insulting, a
deliberate attempt at guilt by association.
There were all sorts of comparisons he *could*
have made on the basis you suggest above
("incomplete information and ignorance") that
would have been entirely unproblematic and
would have made his point a lot more clearly.
That you *support* him in the comparison he did
make, and in his dishonest responses to my
pointing out how offensive it was, tells me, as
I say, all I need to know about your own
intellectual integrity.
"May not be 100% congruent," indeed.
Excuse me while I go take a bath.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > > > And for what it's worth, you strike me as one of the most > > intellectually honest and open to discussion individuals that post > > here and I share your chagrin whenever anyone claims differently. > > So, Marek, you think it was intellectually honest > of Curtis to equate Jim's comment that MMY and Guru > Dev revitalized the spiritual momentum of the world > with the belief of some Christians that only they > will go to heaven and everybody else will go to hell? > > If so, that tells me all I need to know about > *your* intellectual honesty. > **end** Judy, although Curtis' comparison of Jim's beliefs re Maharishi and Guru Dev with extreme dualism of Christian fundamentalism may not be 100% congruent, it does represent (IMO) an honest response to how beliefs themselves, no matter how strongly and sincerely held, are almost always based on incomplete information and ignorance. Beliefs represent an emotional attachment to a certain order in the world (and beyond), oftentimes based on the individual's own experiences, but in the case of religions, frequently based on someone else's stated experiences. Jim's experiences seem genuine enough as he relates them, but the extrapolation of his experiences to the belief that Guru Dev and Maharishi represent a unique juncture in the world and human affairs is, however sincere, unveriafiable and tantamount to similar sectarian beliefs of Christianity or any other religion. The fact that Curtis came to you in an open, straightforward manner even after you had been insulting, and your subsequent dismissive responses betray your own emotional dishonesty. Marek
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And for what it's worth, you strike me as one of the most > intellectually honest and open to discussion individuals that post > here and I share your chagrin whenever anyone claims differently. So, Marek, you think it was intellectually honest of Curtis to equate Jim's comment that MMY and Guru Dev revitalized the spiritual momentum of the world with the belief of some Christians that only they will go to heaven and everybody else will go to hell? If so, that tells me all I need to know about *your* intellectual honesty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy: > > > First, you should apologize for the bogus equation > > you drew between what Jim said and what fundies/ > > Catholics say about those who believe differently > > going to hell, instead of dishonestly trying yet > > again to evade accountability for it. > > Well at least I tried. I don't think we share the same perspective > on your role here on FFL Judy. > Curtis, your posts are nearly always insightful and entertaining. Keep 'em coming. But trying to have meaningful dialog with Judy or WillyTex is a waste of your valuable time IMO. Tex is just nuts. Judy riffs endlessly (and circuitously) on a theme of smarmy condescension that generally ends up (as it did this time) with her calling the person who disagrees with her "dishonest" and a "liar". It's pathetic and boring. You've got way better things to do with all that talent than wasting time on either party.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Do you mean in my response to Richard? I was answering each point > > as it came up. Following his post. Each point is needed in its > > context. If I cut anything out I will get accused of ignoring an > > important point. So perhaps I don't understand what you mean. In > > Judy's post I only included the part relevant to my response so > > I thought I was being a good little snipper. > > > > I am surprised that you would read anything I write but let me > > know how I can communicate better if I am responding to each > > point in a post. > > You should include more quotes from English homosexuals haha, you are really a star fool turq - all british being gay in your universe. Actually Benjamin Creme is a happily married familyman. And for you to able to distinguish between "overshadowing" and "channeling" - well I think that would be to much to ask for. But since you miss more quotes from The Master I will not disappoint you. Keep posted ! And if our Space Brothers starts singing I'll let you know. > channeling "the Master" and occasionally sing a few tunes > from the Space Brothers. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Judy: > First, you should apologize for the bogus equation > you drew between what Jim said and what fundies/ > Catholics say about those who believe differently > going to hell, instead of dishonestly trying yet > again to evade accountability for it. Well at least I tried. I don't think we share the same perspective on your role here on FFL Judy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you mean in my response to Richard? I was answering each point > as it came up. Following his post. Each point is needed in its > context. If I cut anything out I will get accused of ignoring an > important point. So perhaps I don't understand what you mean. In > Judy's post I only included the part relevant to my response so > I thought I was being a good little snipper. > > I am surprised that you would read anything I write but let me > know how I can communicate better if I am responding to each > point in a post. You should include more quotes from English homosexuals channeling "the Master" and occasionally sing a few tunes from the Space Brothers. You might also consider fawning over Maharishi a lot more. Just trying to help. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > Hey man; could you PLEASE LEARN TO SNIP ! > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Do you mean in my response to Richard? I was answering each point as it came up. Following his post. Each point is needed in its context. If I cut anything out I will get accused of ignoring an important point. So perhaps I don't understand what you mean. In Judy's post I only included the part relevant to my response so I thought I was being a good little snipper. I am surprised that you would read anything I write but let me know how I can communicate better if I am responding to each point in a post. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > Hey man; could you PLEASE LEARN TO SNIP ! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Curtis wrote: > We don't check people's practice in other systems of > meditation which is my point. For all we know there > are plenty of "effortless transcenders" out there. > All the practitioners at the San Francisco Zen Center and at the Los Angeles Zen Center get checked during dokusan, but you don't seem to have heard of this kind of practice. In the Tibetan practices I've tried, everyone gets checked by the teacher. Even Swami Vishnudevananda used to check to see if students were maintaining the correct asana or not, so as to properly concentrate on the tip of the nose. What, exactly, kinds of meditation practices and what teachers have you studied under that don't check their students progress? > > Get a grip Curtis! You haven't even defined what > > "effortlessly transcending" is, much less what > > meditation is. > > > We both know what it means in the TM context. > Even the Marshy himself hasn't precisely defined what TM is. So, I have no idea what you mean by "meditation" and "TM"; you didn't mention or seem to understand the checking notes. You seem to have never transcended, or again you failed to mention it. So, that leaves me with only one question: for what purpose did you start TM and become a TM teacher? > Reflecting on thoughts is not the practice that I used > for 15 years when when I was meditating. > TM is based on thinking - how can you have meditation without thoughts to meditate on? You're not making any sense. The mantra is a thought which drops off, but when you are concious of it, it is a thought. You can't meditate if you can't think. > Thinking things over may be a part of some other > people's meditation. So I don't really get your point > here. > Are you saying that you've never had thoughts during your meditation? > If meditation is equated with "thinking things over" > it would have no usefulness as a separate term. > Transcending is experiencing the gap between thoughts. Are you sure you were trained as a teacher of TM? > Calling me an idiot for previously sharing TM beliefs > is rude and unproductive for understanding each other. > Well, you didn't seem to object when Barry said I lived in Pissville and ate prarie dog tacos. So, you DID promise poor students "enlightenment in 5-7 years" - I thought so. What an idiot! Now, I ask you, Curtis, if you lied about TM for all those years, who would believe a thing you have to say now? > > > Altered states produced my meditations and hypnosis > > > will always fascinate me. > > > > > Can you cite any scientific, blind studies that would > > support your calim that there are any altered states > > of conciousness or that there is a corresponding > > physiological state of conciousness to an altered > > state? I think not. > > > You are talking to yourself here. We do not share the > same perspective on altered states or the need for > physiological criteria for sorting them out. I am more > interested in their subjective experiences and how they > can be used for enhancing creativity and problem solving. > What makes you think there are "altered states" of conciousness? You seemed to claim that TM didn't produce any altered states and you seem to deny that TM enhanced creativity or problem solving. All I said was that TM was a great relaxation technique. FYI: There are no scientific, blind studies that support a claim that there are any altered states of conciousness. > > So, you don't know of any other spiritual movements or > > teachers that can teach a person how to effortlessly > > transcend. > > > I am not interested in finding one and you have missed > my point. > So, that's your point? > It is the assertion that TMers know that their meditation > is unique that I was questioning. > But I've listed several teachers and practices which failed to even mention transcending. Who would you beleive: A group of people standing on a street corner who all said a big blue bus just drove by. Or, A guy, standing on the same street corner, who said that no big blue bus just drove by? > Turning it around as if I have to prove the negative is > just a sophist's trick and wont work on me. > So, you can't name a single teacher who can teach effortless transcending. It's not a trick question. I suppose that we could have communicated better in the past before you began to deny the transcendent. As it is, we seem to be on different pages. If you deny the transcendent just about all you have left is rank materialism, if not nihilism. I believe in life too, but I also believe in what life does to you and what you do back. > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > Maybe so, Curtis, but can you cite any other spiritual > > > > movements or teachers that can teach a person how to > > > > effortlessly transcend? I'd be interested in knowing > > > > more about their techniques if you know of any. > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:43 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: But the second set of beliefs were about things that I could not really experience directly. These beliefs were important because they gave my pursuit of internal experiences a broader context with the rest of the world , other spiritual practices, and history. They included belief in the "MMY Effect" and that, historically speaking, MMY was unique in delivering to the world a science of consciousness, and spiritual practices that were "better" than those offered by other teachers. This belief in his uniqueness is echoed here in almost every post by people who are into TM. "He blesses the boys as they stand in line The smell of gun grease and the bayonets they shine He's there to help them all that he can To make them feel wanted he's a good holy man Sky pilot.sky pilot How high can you fly You'll never, never, never reach the sky He smiles at the young soldiers Tells them its all right He knows of their fear in the forthcoming fight Soon there'll be blood and many will die Mothers and fathers back home they will cry Sky pilot.sky pilot How high can you fly You'll never, never, never reach the sky He mumbles a prayer and it ends with a smile The order is given They move down the line But he's still behind and he'll meditate But it won't stop the bleeding or ease the hate As the young men move out into the battle zone He feels good, with God you're never alone He feels tired and he lays on his bed Hopes the men will find courage in the words that he said Sky pilot.sky Pilot How high can you fly You'll never, never, never reach the sky You're soldiers of God you must understand The fate of your country is in your young hands May God give you strength Do your job real well If it all was worth it Only time it will tell In the morning they return With tears in their eyes The stench of death drifts up to the skies A soldier so ill looks at the sky pilot Remembers the words "Thou shalt not kill" Sky pilot.sky pilot How high can you fly You never, never, never reach the sky " The Animals
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey man; could you PLEASE LEARN TO SNIP !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy: "If you can't just acknowledge and, hopefully, > apologize for the bogus comparison, you'd do > much better to just keep quiet rather than > compound the problem by addressing it > dishonestly." > > ME: If I can move beyond my reaction of annoyance at once > again being called "dishonest"(your overuse of this perspective > blocks your ability to understand other points of view here IMO) > this post goes to the heart of what interests me about TM beliefs. > > Since the specific point Jim was making about MMY's spiritual > effect on the world is a view that I had myself while in TM, > lets dispense with his connection with the ideas. First, you should apologize for the bogus equation you drew between what Jim said and what fundies/ Catholics say about those who believe differently going to hell, instead of dishonestly trying yet again to evade accountability for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis wrote: > > My point is that you don't know if anyone else is > > "effortlessly transcending" or not, you can't know. > > > Have you ever heard of "checking", Curtis? Or, are you > saying that you don't know how to check for effortless > transcending? If so, then you must have sucked as a TM > teacher. I've been a checker for years and I can tell > by consulting the checking notes if transcending has > been effortless or not. This is pretty basic stuff, > Curtis. ME:We don't check people's practice in other systems of meditation which is my point. For all we know there are plenty of "effortless transcenders" out there. The rest of your points are increasingly combative but but I'll respond to what I can. > > So, you can't say if there are any other programs that > teach effortless transcending. I thought so - you don't > have any knowledge or experience with spiritual groups > other than the one single cult you joined years ago and > used to sing its praises. Now you've got nothing left > except your own nihilisitic personal ideology. ME: I am not a nihilist and do not hold it as an ideology. My life is full of purpose and meaning, I create it for myself. > > Good luck and best wishes. > > > So claims that TM is the "best" or that MMY is doing > > something unique for the spiritual welfare of the > > world are based on hubris and puffery. > > > So, you're saying that for years you took money from poor > students and gave them only hubris and puffery. Don't you > think you should apologize to all the people and return > their money? You lied to people for years, promising them > "enlightenment in 5-7 years." You were full of it and > you're still full of yourself. ME:I hope the people I taught TM to enjoy it. I am not anti-TM. There are many aspects to the teachings which proved false including the 5-7 years to CC claim of MMY. When I taught it I was sincere in my beliefs. > > > People from all different systems love their practices > > and sing their praises. People who gain altered states > > from self-hypnosis report benefits in their lives. Maybe > > all these practices are wonderful. Perhaps all the good > > people closing their eyes with their spiritual practice > > do the same thing or experience the same states. Maybe > > they are different states but have the same positive > > effect on the world. Maybe none of it has any effect on > > the world at all. > > > Maybe, but you really don't know. ME: Exactly my point. TM beliefs concerning its uniqueness have no reasonable support. > > > But none has proven to be the "best" or most important > > for mankind. That is a self important fantasy promoted > > by the endlessly ambitious guy who wanted his brand to > > dominate in the market. He failed. > > > He succeeded in putting the con on you. That makes you one > of the dumbest people on the planet, next to Barry who > actually gave Marshy and Freddy thousands of dollars. ME: I was 16 when I got involved in TM. I have learned some things since then. I am not a dumb person because I have evolved my beliefs through my life. Perhaps you yourself can relate to changing your beliefs as you grew up. > > > "Effortlessly transcending" is a proprietary concept of > > MMY's system. No one knows if this is important or not. > > > Get a grip Curtis! You haven't even defined what > "effortlessly transcending" is, much less what meditation > is. ME: We both know what it means in the TM context. > > > He created the distinction and then proclaimed it as > > important. Most of the people who started TM have > > dropped it. I know this because I ran a campaign in > > '85 to call the 10,000 meditators who had been initiated > > in the DC center. Very few had continued the practice. > > So perhaps the meditations using lots of effort are the > > ones to bet on for real results and people sticking to > > a long term practice. Who know? > > > Cut the bullshit, Curtis. Meditation means "to think > things over", it's that simple. Based on this definition > almost everyone on the planet meditates. Almost everyone > pauses at least twice a day to reflect on their own > thoughts. And everyone is transcending - all the time. ME: You are mushing together distinctions that are useful to me. I don't understand why you would feel that this statement furthers understanding of the term "meditation". If what you say is true then no meditation practice has a value. Reflecting on thoughts is not the practice that I used for 15 years when when I was meditating. Thinking things over may be a part of some other people's meditation. So I don't really get your point here. If meditation is equated with "thinking things over" it would have no usefulness as a separate term. > > You need to get some smarts, Curtis: I said that TM was > the best relaxation technique. You'r
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Judy: "If you can't just acknowledge and, hopefully, apologize for the bogus comparison, you'd do much better to just keep quiet rather than compound the problem by addressing it dishonestly." ME: If I can move beyond my reaction of annoyance at once again being called "dishonest"(your overuse of this perspective blocks your ability to understand other points of view here IMO) this post goes to the heart of what interests me about TM beliefs. Since the specific point Jim was making about MMY's spiritual effect on the world is a view that I had myself while in TM, lets dispense with his connection with the ideas. I'll just talk about my own history of beliefs. You are not only NOT seeing the connection with the type of belief that people have about their version of Christianity being the "right" one, you are so vehemently opposed to me making the connection that you want me to apologize for making it. This reaction to what I said is all the more curious because I said it about someone else. Keeping these beliefs distinct is clearly important to you. Since comparing their similarities is important to me this works out well. When I was in TM I had two distinctly different sets of beliefs, those related to my own personal experiences, and ones about the effect of those practices on the world. The ones concerning my personal experiences of altered states of consciousness were based on the experiences themselves and long hours listening to MMY discuss what those experiences meant. The fact that they were unusual and powerful was extremely compelling. They clearly deserved an explanation and MMY was eager to give one, so that worked well for a long time. It was not until I found other explanations that I found more compellingly descriptive of my experiences that I decided that MMY's version was no longer useful. But the second set of beliefs were about things that I could not really experience directly. These beliefs were important because they gave my pursuit of internal experiences a broader context with the rest of the world , other spiritual practices, and history. They included belief in the "MMY Effect" and that, historically speaking, MMY was unique in delivering to the world a science of consciousness, and spiritual practices that were "better" than those offered by other teachers. This belief in his uniqueness is echoed here in almost every post by people who are into TM. It is really rare to find someone express a POV that perhaps MMY is more similar than different to lots of other teachers from India. For example holding him on a par with say Yogananda would be abhorrent to most TMers. They would insist that in some way MMY was a better teacher who had a superior style of meditation. Now how could this be known? How could anyone actually compare how spiritually advanced Yogananda's students were? It is completely impossible. It is also impossible to know that MMY is unique in his meditation system from the thousands of teachers promoting a form of Japa in India. MMY got more famous for a while, but that hardly can be the reason to see his technique as superior. Guru Maharaj-ji, the boy guru, was totally famous also. The fact that most people drop TM should be counter evidence to how much better his technique is to other versions of meditation. It seems as though meditation techniques, like most forms of self-development, are pretty similar. People try them and drop them and none has stood out as so compellingly effective that people stick with it. His insistence that his technique is special in its effortlessness is a distinction he created and then emphasized. I don't' know if it is true or not either in its uniqueness or its importance. The claim that the natural tendency of the mind to seek bliss, and that TM delivers that experience quickly, has not held up. People are not compelled by the TM experience to continue any more than with other practices. In India MMY stood a few yards from me and said, "It was the greatest good fortune for all mankind that I came out (to teach TM)". This is a pretty common belief in TM circles, MMY's historical uniqueness and importance. It is not based on the numbers of people who practice the technique. It is not based on his success in delivering in any of the multitude of promises he has made and failed to achieve concerning the growth of the movement or the numbers of people experiencing what he claims is possible. It is based on faith. Faith that extrapolates from personal experiences that have come true, to areas of belief where experience is not possible, the spiritual effect of MMY's teaching in the world. It extends to beliefs concerning the uniqueness of MMY's approach and success, to teachers someone has no experience with, like Yogananda. I remember telling people in my lectures the MMY line that Yogananda was teaching an airplane but TM was the jet. How could anyone possible know this? By faith in MMY. So I hope
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Curtis wrote: > My point is that you don't know if anyone else is > "effortlessly transcending" or not, you can't know. > Have you ever heard of "checking", Curtis? Or, are you saying that you don't know how to check for effortless transcending? If so, then you must have sucked as a TM teacher. I've been a checker for years and I can tell by consulting the checking notes if transcending has been effortless or not. This is pretty basic stuff, Curtis. So, you can't say if there are any other programs that teach effortless transcending. I thought so - you don't have any knowledge or experience with spiritual groups other than the one single cult you joined years ago and used to sing its praises. Now you've got nothing left except your own nihilisitic personal ideology. Good luck and best wishes. > So claims that TM is the "best" or that MMY is doing > something unique for the spiritual welfare of the > world are based on hubris and puffery. > So, you're saying that for years you took money from poor students and gave them only hubris and puffery. Don't you think you should apologize to all the people and return their money? You lied to people for years, promising them "enlightenment in 5-7 years." You were full of it and you're still full of yourself. > People from all different systems love their practices > and sing their praises. People who gain altered states > from self-hypnosis report benefits in their lives. Maybe > all these practices are wonderful. Perhaps all the good > people closing their eyes with their spiritual practice > do the same thing or experience the same states. Maybe > they are different states but have the same positive > effect on the world. Maybe none of it has any effect on > the world at all. > Maybe, but you really don't know. > But none has proven to be the "best" or most important > for mankind. That is a self important fantasy promoted > by the endlessly ambitious guy who wanted his brand to > dominate in the market. He failed. > He succeeded in putting the con on you. That makes you one of the dumbest people on the planet, next to Barry who actually gave Marshy and Freddy thousands of dollars. > "Effortlessly transcending" is a proprietary concept of > MMY's system. No one knows if this is important or not. > Get a grip Curtis! You haven't even defined what "effortlessly transcending" is, much less what meditation is. > He created the distinction and then proclaimed it as > important. Most of the people who started TM have > dropped it. I know this because I ran a campaign in > '85 to call the 10,000 meditators who had been initiated > in the DC center. Very few had continued the practice. > So perhaps the meditations using lots of effort are the > ones to bet on for real results and people sticking to > a long term practice. Who know? > Cut the bullshit, Curtis. Meditation means "to think things over", it's that simple. Based on this definition almost everyone on the planet meditates. Almost everyone pauses at least twice a day to reflect on their own thoughts. And everyone is transcending - all the time. You need to get some smarts, Curtis: I said that TM was the best relaxation technique. You're the idiot that made claims that about TM by promising them "enlightenment" in 5-7 years. > So if you dig TM, good for you, enjoy it. But any > claim that TM is the toppermost of the poppermost is > going to get the Raja raspberry from me. > Your opinion doesn't count for much on a spiritual forum. > Altered states produced my meditations and hypnosis will > always fascinate me. > Can you cite any scientific, blind studies that would support your calim that there are any altered states of conciousness or that there is a corresponding physiological state of conciousness to an altered state? I think not. > I'm glad so many people are putting in the time to see > where it all leads. A little open mindedness between > groups would probably speed our knowledge growth up a > bit, but if I know hairless apes, that is not an option. > Humans love to be part of a "special" group. Even if > it is just a product of their own, or their teacher's, > imagination. > So, you don't know of any other spiritual movements or teachers that can teach a person how to effortlessly transcend. So, you're useless as a teacher, useless as a messenger, and useless as an informer. So, what are you doing pestering people on this forum? You are the leader of a close-minded "special" group whose members think it's fun to poke fun at other people's spiritual path. This says more about you than it does about the people you poke fun at. It says that you haven't given up your beliefs about TM - you're still clinging to them. Give it up and move on, Curtis, stop wasting your time trying to bring other people down to your level. > > Curtis wrote: > > > For all we know any one of the many spiritual movements > > > around the world co
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > One gets the "credit" for accomplishments by actually > > > > > > > accomplishing something, not by claiming that your > > > > > > > teacher did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I absolutely agree with this last bit. I also think you are > > > > taking > > > > > > what I said to an absurd degree. What I have said is > > analogous > > > > to > > > > > > the fact that the electrification of the US wouldn't have > > > > occurred > > > > > > were it not for Edison. You probably don't see it that way. > > OK > > > > by > > > > > > me. However to imply that I am denigrating those who > > followed in > > > > > > Maharishi's footsteps, like the Vanity Fair yoga > > photographer, > > > > is > > > > > > not at all what I am talking about, or that anyone who has > > ever > > > > > > accomplished anything spiritually including any of us here, > > > > hasn't > > > > > > done so entirely on their own merits, through their own > > choice, > > > > and > > > > > > through their own efforts. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of > > the > > > > > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is > > > > Maharishi > > > > > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone > > > > else. > > > > > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did > > a > > > > great > > > > > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak. > > > > > > > > > > > > And last, this implication that Maharishi and Guru Dev did > > this > > > > and > > > > > > therefore it reflects on me somehow is just plain > > nonsensical. I > > > > > > hope that clarifies to you what I have said originally. In a > > > > > > nutshell I said what I said without any further implications > > or > > > > > > conclusions to be drawn. A settled mind. It is what it is, > > and > > > > no > > > > > > more. :-) > > > > > > > > > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual > > > > momentum of the world." > > > > > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > > > > > > > > > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they > > haven't?:-) > > > > > > Are you serious? 99.99% of the world's population has never > > heard of either Guru Dev > > > or MMY. The majority of the world's population who are religious > > follow traditions other > > > than Hinduism. And the vast majority of Hindus have nothing to do > > with MMY. > > > > > > You've heard of the civil war going on on the Iraq, right? You've > > heard of the other wars > > > going on in the middle east, right? Genocidesmany, in fact > > most conducted in the name > > > of religion. Famine. > > > > > > What's YOUR proof? Pundits living behind barbed wire in FF? I'd > > really like to know. > > > > > > Look, if believing in the fairy tale that MMY has "revitalized the > > spiritual momentum of the > > > world" brings you pleasure in thinking that you rode the right > > horse in this life, instead of > > > some other spiritual leader, good on you. There's nothing finer > > than the security and warm > > > blanketness of being in the know, of being in on cosmic secret. > > > > You too with the self aggrandizement argument? What is it with this? > > Is that why you were interested in TM and Maharishi at one time?? I > > don't get that connection. I've always derived a great deal from > > Maharishi and Guru Dev's teaching and the practice of TM, vs. going > > about smugly as a member of some sort of little club. My beliefs are > > purely derived from my experience, and not the other way around. My > > attitude has always been one of surrender vs. arrogance and > > condescension, though I might have been in the minority. Don't know, > > don't care. > > > > As to the world being unaware of Maharishi and Guru Dev's > > contribution, couldn't that be similar to Copernicus's assertion in > > the 15th century that the earth revolves around the sun vs the other > > way around? One of the few with such a belief at that time, but > > ultimately found to be right? Just asking the question. > > > > > But from outside this little cocoon, MMY is a big man in a tiny > > and ever shrinking pond. > > > > > Yes on the surface it would appear so. Just as on the surface the > > sun definitely and unmistakably revolves
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > snip > > But when > > > > you make grand pronouncements about MMY and GD being the > spiritual > > > saviors of > > > > mankind I'm going to speak up. I've been deep in there > > > > > > Very deep for sure. This forum is full of ex-tmers who claim to > have > > > been "deep in there." But I remember this restless crowd from > > > countless courses in Switzerland and elsewere; they would always > > > stroll around somewhere outside, skipping this or that part of > the > > > programme, overeating, staying up late, sleeping during > programme, > > > talking during silence, etcetc - the list is endless - never > taking > > > the whole thing very seriously. Now they brag about having > been "deep > > > in there." What a joke. > > > > > 'Zat so Nabby? Didn't know I was a member of the "restless crowd". > Of course you know > > nothing about me or my activities in the TMO. I was young, but not > restless. > > Probably overeating then. Tough to do on a diet of Swiss Chard. Being a special techniques teacher I did run into plenty of fatties looking for eating techniques though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
snip But when > > > you make grand pronouncements about MMY and GD being the spiritual > > saviors of > > > mankind I'm going to speak up. I've been deep in there > > > > Very deep for sure. This forum is full of ex-tmers who claim to have > > been "deep in there." But I remember this restless crowd from > > countless courses in Switzerland and elsewere; they would always > > stroll around somewhere outside, skipping this or that part of the > > programme, overeating, staying up late, sleeping during programme, > > talking during silence, etcetc - the list is endless - never taking > > the whole thing very seriously. Now they brag about having been "deep > > in there." What a joke. > > > 'Zat so Nabby? Didn't know I was a member of the "restless crowd". Of course you know > nothing about me or my activities in the TMO. I was young, but not restless. Probably overeating then. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, You understand the problems with the lack of evidence in the > assertion. I am disappointed to see your support for his taking a > personal shot at me in the context of a discussion of ideas. Has nothing to do with whether there is evidence for Jim's assertion, and you know it. It isn't even about supporting Robert's shot at you. You're trying to make it something that you can self-righteously bluster about because you can't defend your equation of what Jim said with fundies (or Catholics, makes no difference) claiming everyone but them is going to hell. Your entire response here is disgracefully disingenuous. You know what the problem is. Jim, Robert, and I have all pointed it out. If you can't just acknowledge and, hopefully, apologize for the bogus comparison, you'd do much better to just keep quiet rather than compound the problem by addressing it dishonestly. > > Jim "> > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of the > > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is Maharishi > > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone else. > > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did a great > > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak." > > Me: The belief that MMY is unique in the ability to "revitalize the > spiritual momentum of the world" by a member of his tiny group does > remind me of the people who believe that they out of all the people on > the planet have the spiritual specialness to go to heaven because of > their beliefs. The mechanism of inflating personal specialness is > identical, only the content of the belief is different. In each case > the person believes that they are intrinsically special due to their > beliefs and subjective experiences. I am not misstating the claim, I > am disagreeing with it exactly as it was stated and comparing it to > another example of that type of assertion by similarly sincere > religious people. > > By all means bring on the evidence for the claim of MMY "revitalizing > the spiritual momentum of the world" while Yogananda was merely > "softening the soil", Judy. > > Neither your phrase, "grossly and insultingly misstated", nor > > Judy: "As Robert correctly noted, this is the type of > > deliberate, malicious distortion we see from > > people like Karl Rove; decent people are at a > > loss to find an explation for it." > > take the place of evidence for the claim, and they don't distract me > from the lack of it. But I would love to hear how "decent" people > might come to the conclusion that my pointing out the lack of evidence > for the assertion makes "decent people" compelled to claim that my > sexual energy is misdirected, whatever that means. (nice but slippery > touch dropping his misdirected sexual energy charge, it made him seem > so much more "decent" while making a personal attack in response to a > discussion of religious beliefs.) > > I was comparing the style of thinking with other sincere religious > people ( I was thinking of Catholics, but many Christian sects > believe they will uniquely go to heaven, the "fundies" assumption was > your own invention) Robert, and now you, are comparing my skepticism > to these claims and pointing out a similarity to other religious > people's beliefs to a reviled character in politics. So unless you > feel that your belief in MMY's claims are so totally special that even > making a comparison to other religious people's beliefs is "grossly > and insultingly misstated", you can hold the faux outrage and the > phony "decent people" routine. > > Karl Rove! Decent people! Misdirected sexual energy! Oh my! > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > "Perhaps it has to do with misdirected sexual energy?" > > > > > > If you had any evidence to support the claim I was challenging then > > > you wouldn't need to make degrading personal comments. Casting > > > aspersions on me personally doesn't help your cause, it just reveals > > > your own limitations in a discussion of ideas. > > > > I think he was referring to the fact that you > > grossly and insultingly misstated what Jim had > > said about MMY and Guru Dev, equating it with > > fundies claiming "they alone will go to heaven > > while people believing a slightly different > > version of the same myth will suffer in hell." > > > > As Robert correctly noted, this is the type of > > deliberate, malicious distortion we see from > > people like Karl Rove; decent people are at a > > loss to find an explation for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > "This kind of spiritual oneupmanship c
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > One gets the "credit" for accomplishments by actually > > > > > > > > accomplishing something, not by claiming that your > > > > > > > > teacher did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I absolutely agree with this last bit. I also think you > are > > > > > taking > > > > > > > what I said to an absurd degree. What I have said is > > > analogous > > > > > to > > > > > > > the fact that the electrification of the US wouldn't have > > > > > occurred > > > > > > > were it not for Edison. You probably don't see it that > way. > > > OK > > > > > by > > > > > > > me. However to imply that I am denigrating those who > > > followed in > > > > > > > Maharishi's footsteps, like the Vanity Fair yoga > > > photographer, > > > > > is > > > > > > > not at all what I am talking about, or that anyone who > has > > > ever > > > > > > > accomplished anything spiritually including any of us > here, > > > > > hasn't > > > > > > > done so entirely on their own merits, through their own > > > choice, > > > > > and > > > > > > > through their own efforts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum > of > > > the > > > > > > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it > is > > > > > Maharishi > > > > > > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been > anyone > > > > > else. > > > > > > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda > did > > > a > > > > > great > > > > > > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And last, this implication that Maharishi and Guru Dev > did > > > this > > > > > and > > > > > > > therefore it reflects on me somehow is just plain > > > nonsensical. I > > > > > > > hope that clarifies to you what I have said originally. > In a > > > > > > > nutshell I said what I said without any further > implications > > > or > > > > > > > conclusions to be drawn. A settled mind. It is what it > is, > > > and > > > > > no > > > > > > > more. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the > spiritual > > > > > momentum of the world." > > > > > > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > > > > > > > > > > > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they > > > haven't?:-) > > > > > > > > Are you serious? 99.99% of the world's population has never > > > heard of either Guru Dev > > > > or MMY. The majority of the world's population who are > religious > > > follow traditions other > > > > than Hinduism. And the vast majority of Hindus have nothing to > do > > > with MMY. > > > > > > > > You've heard of the civil war going on on the Iraq, right? > You've > > > heard of the other wars > > > > going on in the middle east, right? Genocidesmany, in fact > > > most conducted in the name > > > > of religion. Famine. > > > > > > > > What's YOUR proof? Pundits living behind barbed wire in FF? I'd > > > really like to know. > > > > > > > > Look, if believing in the fairy tale that MMY has "revitalized > the > > > spiritual momentum of the > > > > world" brings you pleasure in thinking that you rode the right > > > horse in this life, instead of > > > > some other spiritual leader, good on you. There's nothing finer > > > than the security and warm > > > > blanketness of being in the know, of being in on cosmic secret. > > > > > > You too with the self aggrandizement argument? What is it with > this? > > > Is that why you were interested in TM and Maharishi at one time?? > I > > > don't get that connection. I've always derived a great deal from > > > Maharishi and Guru Dev's teaching and the practice of TM, vs. > going > > > about smugly as a member of some sort of little club. My beliefs > are > > > purely derived from my experience, and not the other way around. > My > > > attitude has always been one of surrender vs. arrogance and > > > condescension, though I might have been in the minority. Don't > know, > > > don't care. > > > > > > As to the world being unaware of Maharishi and Guru Dev's > > > contribution, couldn't that be similar to Copernicus's assertion > in > > > the 15th century that the earth revolves around the sun vs the > other > > > way aroun
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Judy, You understand the problems with the lack of evidence in the assertion. I am disappointed to see your support for his taking a personal shot at me in the context of a discussion of ideas. Jim "> > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of the > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is Maharishi > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone else. > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did a great > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak." Me: The belief that MMY is unique in the ability to "revitalize the spiritual momentum of the world" by a member of his tiny group does remind me of the people who believe that they out of all the people on the planet have the spiritual specialness to go to heaven because of their beliefs. The mechanism of inflating personal specialness is identical, only the content of the belief is different. In each case the person believes that they are intrinsically special due to their beliefs and subjective experiences. I am not misstating the claim, I am disagreeing with it exactly as it was stated and comparing it to another example of that type of assertion by similarly sincere religious people. By all means bring on the evidence for the claim of MMY "revitalizing the spiritual momentum of the world" while Yogananda was merely "softening the soil", Judy. Neither your phrase, "grossly and insultingly misstated", nor Judy: "As Robert correctly noted, this is the type of > deliberate, malicious distortion we see from > people like Karl Rove; decent people are at a > loss to find an explation for it." take the place of evidence for the claim, and they don't distract me from the lack of it. But I would love to hear how "decent" people might come to the conclusion that my pointing out the lack of evidence for the assertion makes "decent people" compelled to claim that my sexual energy is misdirected, whatever that means. (nice but slippery touch dropping his misdirected sexual energy charge, it made him seem so much more "decent" while making a personal attack in response to a discussion of religious beliefs.) I was comparing the style of thinking with other sincere religious people ( I was thinking of Catholics, but many Christian sects believe they will uniquely go to heaven, the "fundies" assumption was your own invention) Robert, and now you, are comparing my skepticism to these claims and pointing out a similarity to other religious people's beliefs to a reviled character in politics. So unless you feel that your belief in MMY's claims are so totally special that even making a comparison to other religious people's beliefs is "grossly and insultingly misstated", you can hold the faux outrage and the phony "decent people" routine. Karl Rove! Decent people! Misdirected sexual energy! Oh my! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > "Perhaps it has to do with misdirected sexual energy?" > > > > If you had any evidence to support the claim I was challenging then > > you wouldn't need to make degrading personal comments. Casting > > aspersions on me personally doesn't help your cause, it just reveals > > your own limitations in a discussion of ideas. > > I think he was referring to the fact that you > grossly and insultingly misstated what Jim had > said about MMY and Guru Dev, equating it with > fundies claiming "they alone will go to heaven > while people believing a slightly different > version of the same myth will suffer in hell." > > As Robert correctly noted, this is the type of > deliberate, malicious distortion we see from > people like Karl Rove; decent people are at a > loss to find an explation for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > > wrote: > > > > > > (snip) > > > "This kind of spiritual oneupmanship certainly isn't > > > > restricted > > > > > to MMY's tiny group. Think of the spiritual arrogance at the > > > > basis of > > > > > huge factions of Christianity believing that they alone will > go to > > > > > heaven while people believing a slightly different version of > the > > > > same > > > > > myth will suffer in hell for their lack of growing up in > > > > the "right" > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > But they all fall in the category of pretending to "know" > things > > > > that > > > > > you couldn't possibly know. It is a self inflation of value > > > > > relegating poor Yogananda to fluffer status in this spiritual > > > > > regeneration skin flick. > > > > > > > > > So, you are saying that I have at least a 50 percent chance of > > > being > > > > completely correct? And you have an equally 50% chance of being > > > > completely wrong, right? > > > > > > > > > > > And where did you get this notion that what I said is anything > > > > remotely like
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
TurquoiseB wrote: > That's really the issue, the thing that is so shocking > about someone repeating the catechism of "Maharishi is > responsible for every good thing I see in the world" or > "Maharishi is perfect and can do no wrong" or even "TM > is the best technique of meditation in the world (even > though I've never tried another one)." > Have any of the TMers on this forum ever said that? I think not. All I said was that Marshy taught me the greatest relaxation technique on the planet and I've tried quite a few relaxation techniques. Did I mention Tony Robbins and Dale Carnegie? > There is no thought behind the statements, mere repetition > of what one has been taught to say, and think. Catechism. > And even more shocking, there is zero awareness in the > person who is speaking that they "get" that they are saying > things that 99% of the people on the planet would consider > insane. > Sort of like you repeating the Rama Catechism about a guy who could do amazing things with light bulbs and people getting zapped in a movie theater. You do realize that 99% of the people on this planet would consider you insane for joining cult groups and giving them tens-of-thousands of dollars? > Imagine saying the things you mention above, New, in front > of a strong Christian. You'd have said them, as you say, > confidently, definitely and authoritatively, with no > hesitation, exactly *as* catechism. And the Christian would > have been looking at you as if you had just uttered heresy. > Imagine you saying the things you do about Buddhism in front of just about any practicing Buddhist! Or, telling them your name is "Uncle Tantra" when you haven't read a single tantra. Or, calling yourself "Shoki" when you have never solved a single koan. Or, calling yourself a "programmer" when you've never programmed a single person. > The reason I think it's good that such examples of cate- > chism are occasionally challenged and discussed here is > that a few otherwise sane people really need to understand > that if they said in public the things they say here, most > people would react to them the way that they themselves > react when Nablus and Lou speak just as confidently, > definitely and authoritatively about UFOs and the > Space Brothers. > So, lets discuss why you tried to recruit all those female students for the Marshy for 14 years or why you helped the Rama guy mix up all that kool-aid for another 14 years and why you'd want to say all these insane things about a guy who put a dog collar on and killed hisself and tried to take his girlfriend with him, but I like to eat prarie dog tacos. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > I raised the point, partly, from the memory of speaking absolutely > > confidently, definitively, authoritatively about things like Chrst, > > drawing from my memorized (TMO) catechism, "Christ never suffered", > > Christ's main message was that the kingdom of heaven is within". > > etc. It was SO logical, it HAD to be true. So I / we spoke it as > > if it was an established fact. > > That's really the issue, the thing that is so shocking > about someone repeating the catechism of "Maharishi is > responsible for every good thing I see in the world" or > "Maharishi is perfect and can do no wrong" or even "TM > is the best technique of meditation in the world (even > though I've never tried another one)." > > There is no thought behind the statements, mere repetition > of what one has been taught to say, and think. Catechism. Actually, I've never heard any of these statements in the TM context (except from critics who invent them to make TM sound bad, as here). > The reason I think it's good that such examples of cate- > chism are occasionally challenged and discussed here is > that a few otherwise sane people really need to understand > that if they said in public the things they say here, most > people would react to them the way that they themselves > react when Nablus and Lou speak just as confidently, > definitely and authoritatively about UFOs and the > Space Brothers. So what?? Are you suggesting that people should say only what others are willing to accept?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > One gets the "credit" for accomplishments by actually > > > > > > > accomplishing something, not by claiming that your > > > > > > > teacher did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I absolutely agree with this last bit. I also think you are > > > > taking > > > > > > what I said to an absurd degree. What I have said is > > analogous > > > > to > > > > > > the fact that the electrification of the US wouldn't have > > > > occurred > > > > > > were it not for Edison. You probably don't see it that way. > > OK > > > > by > > > > > > me. However to imply that I am denigrating those who > > followed in > > > > > > Maharishi's footsteps, like the Vanity Fair yoga > > photographer, > > > > is > > > > > > not at all what I am talking about, or that anyone who has > > ever > > > > > > accomplished anything spiritually including any of us here, > > > > hasn't > > > > > > done so entirely on their own merits, through their own > > choice, > > > > and > > > > > > through their own efforts. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of > > the > > > > > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is > > > > Maharishi > > > > > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone > > > > else. > > > > > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did > > a > > > > great > > > > > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak. > > > > > > > > > > > > And last, this implication that Maharishi and Guru Dev did > > this > > > > and > > > > > > therefore it reflects on me somehow is just plain > > nonsensical. I > > > > > > hope that clarifies to you what I have said originally. In a > > > > > > nutshell I said what I said without any further implications > > or > > > > > > conclusions to be drawn. A settled mind. It is what it is, > > and > > > > no > > > > > > more. :-) > > > > > > > > > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual > > > > momentum of the world." > > > > > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > > > > > > > > > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they > > haven't?:-) > > > > > > Are you serious? 99.99% of the world's population has never > > heard of either Guru Dev > > > or MMY. The majority of the world's population who are religious > > follow traditions other > > > than Hinduism. And the vast majority of Hindus have nothing to do > > with MMY. > > > > > > You've heard of the civil war going on on the Iraq, right? You've > > heard of the other wars > > > going on in the middle east, right? Genocidesmany, in fact > > most conducted in the name > > > of religion. Famine. > > > > > > What's YOUR proof? Pundits living behind barbed wire in FF? I'd > > really like to know. > > > > > > Look, if believing in the fairy tale that MMY has "revitalized the > > spiritual momentum of the > > > world" brings you pleasure in thinking that you rode the right > > horse in this life, instead of > > > some other spiritual leader, good on you. There's nothing finer > > than the security and warm > > > blanketness of being in the know, of being in on cosmic secret. > > > > You too with the self aggrandizement argument? What is it with this? > > Is that why you were interested in TM and Maharishi at one time?? I > > don't get that connection. I've always derived a great deal from > > Maharishi and Guru Dev's teaching and the practice of TM, vs. going > > about smugly as a member of some sort of little club. My beliefs are > > purely derived from my experience, and not the other way around. My > > attitude has always been one of surrender vs. arrogance and > > condescension, though I might have been in the minority. Don't know, > > don't care. > > > > As to the world being unaware of Maharishi and Guru Dev's > > contribution, couldn't that be similar to Copernicus's assertion in > > the 15th century that the earth revolves around the sun vs the other > > way around? One of the few with such a belief at that time, but > > ultimately found to be right? Just asking the question. > > > > > But from outside this little cocoon, MMY is a big man in a tiny > > and ever shrinking pond. > > > > > Yes on the surface it would appear so. Just as on the surface the > > sun definitely and unmistakably revolves around
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I raised the point, partly, from the memory of speaking absolutely > confidently, definitively, authoritatively about things like Chrst, > drawing from my memorized (TMO) catechism, "Christ never suffered", > Christ's main message was that the kingdom of heaven is within". etc. > It was SO logical, it HAD to be true. So I / we spoke it as if it was > an established fact. It is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I raised the point, partly, from the memory of speaking absolutely > confidently, definitively, authoritatively about things like Chrst, > drawing from my memorized (TMO) catechism, "Christ never suffered", > Christ's main message was that the kingdom of heaven is within". > etc. It was SO logical, it HAD to be true. So I / we spoke it as > if it was an established fact. That's really the issue, the thing that is so shocking about someone repeating the catechism of "Maharishi is responsible for every good thing I see in the world" or "Maharishi is perfect and can do no wrong" or even "TM is the best technique of meditation in the world (even though I've never tried another one)." There is no thought behind the statements, mere repetition of what one has been taught to say, and think. Catechism. And even more shocking, there is zero awareness in the person who is speaking that they "get" that they are saying things that 99% of the people on the planet would consider insane. Imagine saying the things you mention above, New, in front of a strong Christian. You'd have said them, as you say, confidently, definitely and authoritatively, with no hesitation, exactly *as* catechism. And the Christian would have been looking at you as if you had just uttered heresy. The reason I think it's good that such examples of cate- chism are occasionally challenged and discussed here is that a few otherwise sane people really need to understand that if they said in public the things they say here, most people would react to them the way that they themselves react when Nablus and Lou speak just as confidently, definitely and authoritatively about UFOs and the Space Brothers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > One gets the "credit" for accomplishments by actually > > > > > > accomplishing something, not by claiming that your > > > > > > teacher did. > > > > > > > > > > > I absolutely agree with this last bit. I also think you are > > > taking > > > > > what I said to an absurd degree. What I have said is > analogous > > > to > > > > > the fact that the electrification of the US wouldn't have > > > occurred > > > > > were it not for Edison. You probably don't see it that way. > OK > > > by > > > > > me. However to imply that I am denigrating those who > followed in > > > > > Maharishi's footsteps, like the Vanity Fair yoga > photographer, > > > is > > > > > not at all what I am talking about, or that anyone who has > ever > > > > > accomplished anything spiritually including any of us here, > > > hasn't > > > > > done so entirely on their own merits, through their own > choice, > > > and > > > > > through their own efforts. > > > > > > > > > > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of > the > > > > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is > > > Maharishi > > > > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone > > > else. > > > > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did > a > > > great > > > > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak. > > > > > > > > > > And last, this implication that Maharishi and Guru Dev did > this > > > and > > > > > therefore it reflects on me somehow is just plain > nonsensical. I > > > > > hope that clarifies to you what I have said originally. In a > > > > > nutshell I said what I said without any further implications > or > > > > > conclusions to be drawn. A settled mind. It is what it is, > and > > > no > > > > > more. :-) > > > > > > > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual > > > momentum of the world." > > > > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > > > > > > > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they > haven't?:-) > > > > Are you serious? 99.99% of the world's population has never > heard of either Guru Dev > > or MMY. The majority of the world's population who are religious > follow traditions other > > than Hinduism. And the vast majority of Hindus have nothing to do > with MMY. > > > > You've heard of the civil war going on on the Iraq, right? You've > heard of the other wars > > going on in the middle east, right? Genocidesmany, in fact > most conducted in the name > > of religion. Famine. > > > > What's YOUR proof? Pundits living behind barbed wire in FF? I'd > really like to know. > > > > Look, if believing in the fairy tale that MMY has "revitalized the > spiritual momentum of the > > world" brings you pleasure in thinking that you rode the right > horse in this life, instead of > > some other spiritual leader, good on you. There's nothing finer > than the security and warm > > blanketness of being in the know, of being in on cosmic secret. > > You too with the self aggrandizement argument? What is it with this? > Is that why you were interested in TM and Maharishi at one time?? I > don't get that connection. I've always derived a great deal from > Maharishi and Guru Dev's teaching and the practice of TM, vs. going > about smugly as a member of some sort of little club. My beliefs are > purely derived from my experience, and not the other way around. My > attitude has always been one of surrender vs. arrogance and > condescension, though I might have been in the minority. Don't know, > don't care. > > As to the world being unaware of Maharishi and Guru Dev's > contribution, couldn't that be similar to Copernicus's assertion in > the 15th century that the earth revolves around the sun vs the other > way around? One of the few with such a belief at that time, but > ultimately found to be right? Just asking the question. > > > But from outside this little cocoon, MMY is a big man in a tiny > and ever shrinking pond. > > > Yes on the surface it would appear so. Just as on the surface the > sun definitely and unmistakably revolves around the earth.:-) "vs. going about smugly as a member of some little club." I see. So you believe that, like Copernicus, MMY alone has the keys to the castle, that he is way ahead of the spiritual truth curve and humanity just has to catch up. You sure you aren't going about smugly as a member of some little club? Like I said J
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > > wrote: > > > > > One gets the "credit" for accomplishments by actually > > > > > accomplishing something, not by claiming that your > > > > > teacher did. > > > > > > > > > I absolutely agree with this last bit. I also think you are > > taking > > > > what I said to an absurd degree. What I have said is analogous > > to > > > > the fact that the electrification of the US wouldn't have > > occurred > > > > were it not for Edison. You probably don't see it that way. OK > > by > > > > me. However to imply that I am denigrating those who followed in > > > > Maharishi's footsteps, like the Vanity Fair yoga photographer, > > is > > > > not at all what I am talking about, or that anyone who has ever > > > > accomplished anything spiritually including any of us here, > > hasn't > > > > done so entirely on their own merits, through their own choice, > > and > > > > through their own efforts. > > > > > > > > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of the > > > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is > > Maharishi > > > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone > > else. > > > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did a > > great > > > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak. > > > > > > > > And last, this implication that Maharishi and Guru Dev did this > > and > > > > therefore it reflects on me somehow is just plain nonsensical. I > > > > hope that clarifies to you what I have said originally. In a > > > > nutshell I said what I said without any further implications or > > > > conclusions to be drawn. A settled mind. It is what it is, and > > no > > > > more. :-) > > > > > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual > > momentum of the world." > > > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > > > > > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they haven't?:-) > > Are you serious? 99.99% of the world's population has never heard of either Guru Dev > or MMY. The majority of the world's population who are religious follow traditions other > than Hinduism. And the vast majority of Hindus have nothing to do with MMY. > > You've heard of the civil war going on on the Iraq, right? You've heard of the other wars > going on in the middle east, right? Genocidesmany, in fact most conducted in the name > of religion. Famine. > > What's YOUR proof? Pundits living behind barbed wire in FF? I'd really like to know. > > Look, if believing in the fairy tale that MMY has "revitalized the spiritual momentum of the > world" brings you pleasure in thinking that you rode the right horse in this life, instead of > some other spiritual leader, good on you. There's nothing finer than the security and warm > blanketness of being in the know, of being in on cosmic secret. You too with the self aggrandizement argument? What is it with this? Is that why you were interested in TM and Maharishi at one time?? I don't get that connection. I've always derived a great deal from Maharishi and Guru Dev's teaching and the practice of TM, vs. going about smugly as a member of some sort of little club. My beliefs are purely derived from my experience, and not the other way around. My attitude has always been one of surrender vs. arrogance and condescension, though I might have been in the minority. Don't know, don't care. As to the world being unaware of Maharishi and Guru Dev's contribution, couldn't that be similar to Copernicus's assertion in the 15th century that the earth revolves around the sun vs the other way around? One of the few with such a belief at that time, but ultimately found to be right? Just asking the question. > But from outside this little cocoon, MMY is a big man in a tiny and ever shrinking pond. > Yes on the surface it would appear so. Just as on the surface the sun definitely and unmistakably revolves around the earth.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > wrote: > > > > One gets the "credit" for accomplishments by actually > > > > accomplishing something, not by claiming that your > > > > teacher did. > > > > > > > I absolutely agree with this last bit. I also think you are > taking > > > what I said to an absurd degree. What I have said is analogous > to > > > the fact that the electrification of the US wouldn't have > occurred > > > were it not for Edison. You probably don't see it that way. OK > by > > > me. However to imply that I am denigrating those who followed in > > > Maharishi's footsteps, like the Vanity Fair yoga photographer, > is > > > not at all what I am talking about, or that anyone who has ever > > > accomplished anything spiritually including any of us here, > hasn't > > > done so entirely on their own merits, through their own choice, > and > > > through their own efforts. > > > > > > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of the > > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is > Maharishi > > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone > else. > > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did a > great > > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak. > > > > > > And last, this implication that Maharishi and Guru Dev did this > and > > > therefore it reflects on me somehow is just plain nonsensical. I > > > hope that clarifies to you what I have said originally. In a > > > nutshell I said what I said without any further implications or > > > conclusions to be drawn. A settled mind. It is what it is, and > no > > > more. :-) > > > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual > momentum of the world." > > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > > > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they haven't?:-) Are you serious? 99.99% of the world's population has never heard of either Guru Dev or MMY. The majority of the world's population who are religious follow traditions other than Hinduism. And the vast majority of Hindus have nothing to do with MMY. You've heard of the civil war going on on the Iraq, right? You've heard of the other wars going on in the middle east, right? Genocidesmany, in fact most conducted in the name of religion. Famine. What's YOUR proof? Pundits living behind barbed wire in FF? I'd really like to know. Look, if believing in the fairy tale that MMY has "revitalized the spiritual momentum of the world" brings you pleasure in thinking that you rode the right horse in this life, instead of some other spiritual leader, good on you. There's nothing finer than the security and warm blanketness of being in the know, of being in on cosmic secret. But from outside this little cocoon, MMY is a big man in a tiny and ever shrinking pond.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of new.morning Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 10:07 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis > Actually, my God is a giant crow and he's going to eat your caterpillar god, > leaving you godless. My God, then I would end up like Curtis! And/ but, whose going to eat (the) crow? No one eats Kakbushundi, the divine crow: http://www.urday.com/rcon1.html No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 12:20 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
I raised the point, partly, from the memory of speaking absolutely confidently, definitively, authoritatively about things like Chrst, drawing from my memorized (TMO) catechism, "Christ never suffered", Christ's main message was that the kingdom of heaven is within". etc. It was SO logical, it HAD to be true. So I / we spoke it as if it was an established fact. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > ... > > > > I am not arguing for the propostion that God is a one trick pony, etc. > I simply question the ability for anyone to definatively speak for God > -- even if the proposition is most logical. > > Lots of people think they speak for God, and tell us definitively what > Gods nature is and what God really means, I just ask them the same > questiom I ask you: how do you really know? On what bais can you speak > authoritatively about God -- unless, an until you can establish that > "God" -- in a form all would acknowledge as such -- came to you and > said this, and you could conclusively demonstrate that you were not > hallucinating -- nor prone to delusions. > > > Well, a great many people in the world do believe God is a one-trick > pony, > > and they delight in killing those who don't see things as they do. > If God > > did give such a directive to one person, what about all the people > who lived > > and died before that person, or in cultures unable to communicate > with his? > > These sort of questions certainly don't prove that God spoke to you. > > > What about all the other inhabited planets that undoubtedly sprinkle the > > universe? Is this person on tour, or is there one super guy appointed to > > each planet, who somehow takes care of everyone in the millions of years > > preceding and succeeding his lifetime? > > Maybe God speaks to one in each generation. Maybe God spoke to one a > long time ago, in the corporate board room and said "do nothing". > Maybe God is a 1000 foot tall catipillar and doesn't speak at all. Or > maybe God does not exist. Or maybe God is a Deist, an created the > universe and then withdrew to let world-kind to figure it out for > themselves. > > I imagine you can't even disprove these possibilities, much less prove > that God spoke to you and gave you the inside scoop. > > If on the other hand you are simply musing about God and offering up > your own personal ponderings and possibly projections about what God > is and means, then cool. > > Then, maybe my 1000 foot catipillar God can speak to your multi-pony > God -- while the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of > Mohamad, the God of Christ, the God of Joseph Smith , the God of > Vyassa, The God of Patanjali, The God of Confusus, all look on with > arms crossed-- and looking on skeptically. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > "Perhaps it has to do with misdirected sexual energy?" > > > > If you had any evidence to support the claim I was challenging then > > you wouldn't need to make degrading personal comments. Casting > > aspersions on me personally doesn't help your cause, it just reveals > > your own limitations in a discussion of ideas. > > I think he was referring to the fact that you > grossly and insultingly misstated what Jim had > said about MMY and Guru Dev, equating it with > fundies claiming "they alone will go to heaven > while people believing a slightly different > version of the same myth will suffer in hell." > > As Robert correctly noted, this is the type of > deliberate, malicious distortion we see from > people like Karl Rove; decent people are at a > loss to find an explation for it. > But not expletives.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If on the other hand you are simply musing about God and offering up > your own personal ponderings and possibly projections about what God > is and means, then cool. > > That's all I'm doing. Expressing what makes sense to me, but I don't know > anything for sure. > > Then, maybe my 1000 foot catipillar God can speak to your multi-pony > God > > Actually, my God is a giant crow and he's going to eat your caterpillar god, > leaving you godless. My God, then I would end up like Curtis! And/ but, whose going to eat (the) crow?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Perhaps it has to do with misdirected sexual energy?" > > If you had any evidence to support the claim I was challenging then > you wouldn't need to make degrading personal comments. Casting > aspersions on me personally doesn't help your cause, it just reveals > your own limitations in a discussion of ideas. I think he was referring to the fact that you grossly and insultingly misstated what Jim had said about MMY and Guru Dev, equating it with fundies claiming "they alone will go to heaven while people believing a slightly different version of the same myth will suffer in hell." As Robert correctly noted, this is the type of deliberate, malicious distortion we see from people like Karl Rove; decent people are at a loss to find an explation for it. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > wrote: > > > > (snip) > > "This kind of spiritual oneupmanship certainly isn't > > > restricted > > > > to MMY's tiny group. Think of the spiritual arrogance at the > > > basis of > > > > huge factions of Christianity believing that they alone will go to > > > > heaven while people believing a slightly different version of the > > > same > > > > myth will suffer in hell for their lack of growing up in > > > the "right" > > > > version. > > > > > > > > But they all fall in the category of pretending to "know" things > > > that > > > > you couldn't possibly know. It is a self inflation of value > > > > relegating poor Yogananda to fluffer status in this spiritual > > > > regeneration skin flick. > > > > > > > So, you are saying that I have at least a 50 percent chance of > > being > > > completely correct? And you have an equally 50% chance of being > > > completely wrong, right? > > > > > > > > And where did you get this notion that what I said is anything > > > remotely like the TM folks go to heaven and the rest go to hell? > > > That implied exclusivity is something Turq brought up also. I don't > > > get it. I have never implied or assumed anything like that. :-) > > > > Well, I guess you could declare that the -Ego~ made me do it. > > > > -Take a perfectly good explanation, and somehow polarize it. > > In a way, we are so used to polarization, these days. > > -Karl Rove, who guided the Bushes into the WH, is a master of this > > type of thing... > > -Perhaps it has to do with misdirected sexual energy? > > Who knows, but if you asked Sigmund??, you know what he would say... > > So, who knows?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of new.morning Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 9:43 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis If on the other hand you are simply musing about God and offering up your own personal ponderings and possibly projections about what God is and means, then cool. That’s all I’m doing. Expressing what makes sense to me, but I don’t know anything for sure. Then, maybe my 1000 foot catipillar God can speak to your multi-pony God – Actually, my God is a giant crow and he’s going to eat your caterpillar god, leaving you godless. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 12:20 PM
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jim_flanegin Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 9:14 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis You bring up a good point, Rick, the last one. However I am completely astonished that you would refer to others killing in the name of their perspective, I wasn’t referring to TM people, but to all the wars, suicide bombers, etc., that have killed so many to defend or impose a religious perspective. Ironic, because religion is essentially about infinite peace. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 12:20 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... I am not arguing for the propostion that God is a one trick pony, etc. I simply question the ability for anyone to definatively speak for God -- even if the proposition is most logical. Lots of people think they speak for God, and tell us definitively what Gods nature is and what God really means, I just ask them the same questiom I ask you: how do you really know? On what bais can you speak authoritatively about God -- unless, an until you can establish that "God" -- in a form all would acknowledge as such -- came to you and said this, and you could conclusively demonstrate that you were not hallucinating -- nor prone to delusions. > Well, a great many people in the world do believe God is a one-trick pony, > and they delight in killing those who don't see things as they do. If God > did give such a directive to one person, what about all the people who lived > and died before that person, or in cultures unable to communicate with his? These sort of questions certainly don't prove that God spoke to you. > What about all the other inhabited planets that undoubtedly sprinkle the > universe? Is this person on tour, or is there one super guy appointed to > each planet, who somehow takes care of everyone in the millions of years > preceding and succeeding his lifetime? Maybe God speaks to one in each generation. Maybe God spoke to one a long time ago, in the corporate board room and said "do nothing". Maybe God is a 1000 foot tall catipillar and doesn't speak at all. Or maybe God does not exist. Or maybe God is a Deist, an created the universe and then withdrew to let world-kind to figure it out for themselves. I imagine you can't even disprove these possibilities, much less prove that God spoke to you and gave you the inside scoop. If on the other hand you are simply musing about God and offering up your own personal ponderings and possibly projections about what God is and means, then cool. Then, maybe my 1000 foot catipillar God can speak to your multi-pony God -- while the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Mohamad, the God of Christ, the God of Joseph Smith , the God of Vyassa, The God of Patanjali, The God of Confusus, all look on with arms crossed-- and looking on skeptically.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of new.morning > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 7:59 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis > > > > --- In HYPERLINK > "mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick > Archer" wrote: > > > > > God is not a one-trick pony. > > That sounds reasonable and plausible. But unless "God" -- in a form > all would acknowledge as such -- came to you and said this, and you > could conclusively demonstrate that you were not hallucinating -- nor > prone to delusions -- then, i suppose we could move this assertion > one step beyond personal opinion. Untill then ... ;) > > >No one > > person is solely responsible for the world's salvation or demise. > > See above. And do you know for a fact -- a fact that is > demonstratively true for all "observers" -- that God did not actually > give such a directive to one person? > > Well, a great many people in the world do believe God is a one- trick pony, > and they delight in killing those who don't see things as they do. If God > did give such a directive to one person, what about all the people who lived > and died before that person, or in cultures unable to communicate with his? > What about all the other inhabited planets that undoubtedly sprinkle the > universe? Is this person on tour, or is there one super guy appointed to > each planet, who somehow takes care of everyone in the millions of years > preceding and succeeding his lifetime? If those questions seem ludicrous, it > should seem just as ludicrous that God should impose a "one super guy at a > time" rule on any planet. Look at how God's creativity proliferates all > around us in every little thing. Why should not that same Divine Energy be > capable of providing multiple opportunities to become more deeply aware of > it? > You bring up a good point, Rick, the last one. However I am completely astonished that you would refer to others killing in the name of their perspective, that Turq thinks it is all an exercise in self aggrandizement and thought addiction, that Curtis instantly makes references to pornography when the idea is spoken about, that Vaj finds the opportunity to trash Maharishi every chance he gets, and all of this as a result of an opinion I expressed about Maharishi and Guru Dev being the catalysts for the spiritual regeneration of the world. I was careful to clarify that I didn't think that this put any of the rest of you down who didn't see it that way, that it was plainly the way I personally see it, and that the resulting spiritual efforts that others have made were accredited to those who produced them. What is up with each of you? I don't get it. You sound like a bunch of lunatics, with serious issues. And that's all I'm going to say.:- )
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of new.morning Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 7:59 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis --- In HYPERLINK "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > God is not a one-trick pony. That sounds reasonable and plausible. But unless "God" -- in a form all would acknowledge as such -- came to you and said this, and you could conclusively demonstrate that you were not hallucinating -- nor prone to delusions -- then, i suppose we could move this assertion one step beyond personal opinion. Untill then ... ;) >No one > person is solely responsible for the world's salvation or demise. See above. And do you know for a fact -- a fact that is demonstratively true for all "observers" -- that God did not actually give such a directive to one person? Well, a great many people in the world do believe God is a one-trick pony, and they delight in killing those who don’t see things as they do. If God did give such a directive to one person, what about all the people who lived and died before that person, or in cultures unable to communicate with his? What about all the other inhabited planets that undoubtedly sprinkle the universe? Is this person on tour, or is there one super guy appointed to each planet, who somehow takes care of everyone in the millions of years preceding and succeeding his lifetime? If those questions seem ludicrous, it should seem just as ludicrous that God should impose a “one super guy at a time” rule on any planet. Look at how God’s creativity proliferates all around us in every little thing. Why should not that same Divine Energy be capable of providing multiple opportunities to become more deeply aware of it? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 12:20 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
"Perhaps it has to do with misdirected sexual energy?" If you had any evidence to support the claim I was challenging then you wouldn't need to make degrading personal comments. Casting aspersions on me personally doesn't help your cause, it just reveals your own limitations in a discussion of ideas. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (snip) > "This kind of spiritual oneupmanship certainly isn't > > restricted > > > to MMY's tiny group. Think of the spiritual arrogance at the > > basis of > > > huge factions of Christianity believing that they alone will go to > > > heaven while people believing a slightly different version of the > > same > > > myth will suffer in hell for their lack of growing up in > > the "right" > > > version. > > > > > > But they all fall in the category of pretending to "know" things > > that > > > you couldn't possibly know. It is a self inflation of value > > > relegating poor Yogananda to fluffer status in this spiritual > > > regeneration skin flick. > > > > > So, you are saying that I have at least a 50 percent chance of > being > > completely correct? And you have an equally 50% chance of being > > completely wrong, right? > > > > > And where did you get this notion that what I said is anything > > remotely like the TM folks go to heaven and the rest go to hell? > > That implied exclusivity is something Turq brought up also. I don't > > get it. I have never implied or assumed anything like that. :-) > > Well, I guess you could declare that the -Ego~ made me do it. > > -Take a perfectly good explanation, and somehow polarize it. > In a way, we are so used to polarization, these days. > -Karl Rove, who guided the Bushes into the WH, is a master of this > type of thing... > -Perhaps it has to do with misdirected sexual energy? > Who knows, but if you asked Sigmund??, you know what he would say... > So, who knows? > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
(snip) "This kind of spiritual oneupmanship certainly isn't > restricted > > to MMY's tiny group. Think of the spiritual arrogance at the > basis of > > huge factions of Christianity believing that they alone will go to > > heaven while people believing a slightly different version of the > same > > myth will suffer in hell for their lack of growing up in > the "right" > > version. > > > > But they all fall in the category of pretending to "know" things > that > > you couldn't possibly know. It is a self inflation of value > > relegating poor Yogananda to fluffer status in this spiritual > > regeneration skin flick. > > > So, you are saying that I have at least a 50 percent chance of being > completely correct? And you have an equally 50% chance of being > completely wrong, right? > > And where did you get this notion that what I said is anything > remotely like the TM folks go to heaven and the rest go to hell? > That implied exclusivity is something Turq brought up also. I don't > get it. I have never implied or assumed anything like that. :-) Well, I guess you could declare that the -Ego~ made me do it. -Take a perfectly good explanation, and somehow polarize it. In a way, we are so used to polarization, these days. -Karl Rove, who guided the Bushes into the WH, is a master of this type of thing... -Perhaps it has to do with misdirected sexual energy? Who knows, but if you asked Sigmund??, you know what he would say... So, who knows? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > God is not a one-trick pony. That sounds reasonable and plausible. But unless "God" -- in a form all would acknowledge as such -- came to you and said this, and you could conclusively demonstrate that you were not hallucinating -- nor prone to delusions -- then, i suppose we could move this assertion one step beyond personal opinion. Untill then ... ;) >No one > person is solely responsible for the world's salvation or demise. See above. And do you know for a fact -- a fact that is demonstratively true for all "observers" -- that God did not actually give such a directive to one person?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
My point is that you don't know if anyone else is "effortlessly transcending" or not, you can't know. So claims that TM is the "best" or that MMY is doing something unique for the spiritual welfare of the world are based on hubris and puffery. People from all different systems love their practices and sing their praises. People who gain altered states from self-hypnosis report benefits in their lives. Maybe all these practices are wonderful. Perhaps all the good people closing their eyes with their spiritual practice do the same thing or experience the same states. Maybe they are different states but have the same positive effect on the world. Maybe none of it has any effect on the world at all. But none has proven to be the "best" or most important for mankind. That is a self important fantasy promoted by the endlessly ambitious guy who wanted his brand to dominate in the market. He failed. "Effortlessly transcending" is a proprietary concept of MMY's system. No one knows if this is important or not. He created the distinction and then proclaimed it as important. Most of the people who started TM have dropped it. I know this because I ran a campaign in '85 to call the 10,000 meditators who had been initiated in the DC center. Very few had continued the practice. So perhaps the meditations using lots of effort are the ones to bet on for real results and people sticking to a long term practice. Who know? So if you dig TM, good for you, enjoy it. But any claim that TM is the toppermost of the poppermost is going to get the Raja raspberry from me. Altered states produced my meditations and hypnosis will always fascinate me. I'm glad so many people are putting in the time to see where it all leads. A little open mindedness between groups would probably speed our knowledge growth up a bit, but if I know hairless apes, that is not an option. Humans love to be part of a "special" group. Even if it is just a product of their own, or their teacher's, imagination. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis wrote: > > For all we know any one of the many spiritual movements > > around the world could be popping out people in UC like > > a Chinese sweatshop filling a Wallmart order. > > > Maybe so, Curtis, but can you cite any other spiritual > movements or teachers that can teach a person how to > effortlessly transcend? I'd be interested in knowing > more about their techniques if you know of any. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Geezer, > > > > This is one of the most dubious of the grandiose claims made by > > MMY. I would have thought that by now his "I am number one" > > bravado would have soured a bit for the adults in the movement. > > It was more understandable when we were all very young. It implies > > a lot of knowledge about other spiritual movements and the states > > of consciousness they are achieving that would be impossible. For > > all we know any one of the many spiritual movements around the > > world could be popping out people in UC like a Chinese sweatshop > > filling a Wallmart order. This kind of spiritual oneupmanship > > certainly isn't restricted to MMY's tiny group. Think of the > > spiritual arrogance at the basis of huge factions of Christianity > > believing that they alone will go to heaven while people believing > > a slightly different version of the same myth will suffer in hell > > for their lack of growing up in the "right" version. > > > > But they all fall in the category of pretending to "know" things > > that you couldn't possibly know. It is a self inflation of value > > relegating poor Yogananda to fluffer status in this spiritual > > regeneration skin flick. > > Not to mention relegating those who believe it to > the level of a guy sitting in a porn theater jacking > off to a porn movie, when it would have been so much > easier just to get laid. > I see that its been awhile, eh?;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Geezer, > > This is one of the most dubious of the grandiose claims made by MMY. > I would have thought that by now his "I am number one" bravado would > have soured a bit for the adults in the movement. It was more > understandable when we were all very young. It implies a lot of > knowledge about other spiritual movements and the states of > consciousness they are achieving that would be impossible. For all we > know any one of the many spiritual movements around the world could be > popping out people in UC like a Chinese sweatshop filling a Wallmart > order. This kind of spiritual oneupmanship certainly isn't restricted > to MMY's tiny group. Think of the spiritual arrogance at the basis of > huge factions of Christianity believing that they alone will go to > heaven while people believing a slightly different version of the same > myth will suffer in hell for their lack of growing up in the "right" > version. > > But they all fall in the category of pretending to "know" things that > you couldn't possibly know. It is a self inflation of value > relegating poor Yogananda to fluffer status in this spiritual > regeneration skin flick. > So, you are saying that I have at least a 50 percent chance of being completely correct? And you have an equally 50% chance of being completely wrong, right? And where did you get this notion that what I said is anything remotely like the TM folks go to heaven and the rest go to hell? That implied exclusivity is something Turq brought up also. I don't get it. I have never implied or assumed anything like that. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Curtis wrote: > For all we know any one of the many spiritual movements > around the world could be popping out people in UC like > a Chinese sweatshop filling a Wallmart order. > Maybe so, Curtis, but can you cite any other spiritual movements or teachers that can teach a person how to effortlessly transcend? I'd be interested in knowing more about their techniques if you know of any.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Geezer, > > This is one of the most dubious of the grandiose claims made by > MMY. I would have thought that by now his "I am number one" > bravado would have soured a bit for the adults in the movement. > It was more understandable when we were all very young. It implies > a lot of knowledge about other spiritual movements and the states > of consciousness they are achieving that would be impossible. For > all we know any one of the many spiritual movements around the > world could be popping out people in UC like a Chinese sweatshop > filling a Wallmart order. This kind of spiritual oneupmanship > certainly isn't restricted to MMY's tiny group. Think of the > spiritual arrogance at the basis of huge factions of Christianity > believing that they alone will go to heaven while people believing > a slightly different version of the same myth will suffer in hell > for their lack of growing up in the "right" version. > > But they all fall in the category of pretending to "know" things > that you couldn't possibly know. It is a self inflation of value > relegating poor Yogananda to fluffer status in this spiritual > regeneration skin flick. Not to mention relegating those who believe it to the level of a guy sitting in a porn theater jacking off to a porn movie, when it would have been so much easier just to get laid.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 25, 2007, at 1:46 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > Maharishi created the necessary human conditions for Maitreya to > > again grace this world together with the Masters of Wisdom. Proof > > enough for me. > > > > "Heaven will walk on earth... in this generation." Maharishi > > > And more Space Aliens are immigrating here illegally too. Our Space Brothers have no need to immigrate here whatsoever :-) I believe > I've also noticed an increase in black helicopter sightings. Get a checking > > Jai Guru Dev Our Space Brothers have no need to immigrate here :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
Geezer, This is one of the most dubious of the grandiose claims made by MMY. I would have thought that by now his "I am number one" bravado would have soured a bit for the adults in the movement. It was more understandable when we were all very young. It implies a lot of knowledge about other spiritual movements and the states of consciousness they are achieving that would be impossible. For all we know any one of the many spiritual movements around the world could be popping out people in UC like a Chinese sweatshop filling a Wallmart order. This kind of spiritual oneupmanship certainly isn't restricted to MMY's tiny group. Think of the spiritual arrogance at the basis of huge factions of Christianity believing that they alone will go to heaven while people believing a slightly different version of the same myth will suffer in hell for their lack of growing up in the "right" version. But they all fall in the category of pretending to "know" things that you couldn't possibly know. It is a self inflation of value relegating poor Yogananda to fluffer status in this spiritual regeneration skin flick. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > One gets the "credit" for accomplishments by actually > > > accomplishing something, not by claiming that your > > > teacher did. > > > > > I absolutely agree with this last bit. I also think you are taking > > what I said to an absurd degree. What I have said is analogous to > > the fact that the electrification of the US wouldn't have occurred > > were it not for Edison. You probably don't see it that way. OK by > > me. However to imply that I am denigrating those who followed in > > Maharishi's footsteps, like the Vanity Fair yoga photographer, is > > not at all what I am talking about, or that anyone who has ever > > accomplished anything spiritually including any of us here, hasn't > > done so entirely on their own merits, through their own choice, and > > through their own efforts. > > > > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of the > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is Maharishi > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone else. > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did a great > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak. > > > > And last, this implication that Maharishi and Guru Dev did this and > > therefore it reflects on me somehow is just plain nonsensical. I > > hope that clarifies to you what I have said originally. In a > > nutshell I said what I said without any further implications or > > conclusions to be drawn. A settled mind. It is what it is, and no > > more. :-) > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual momentum of the world." > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of jim_flanegin > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:19 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis > > > > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual > momentum of the world." > > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > > > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they haven't?:-) > > You guys are speaking in absolutes. He made a major contribution. Others > have also. Still others are and will. God is not a one-trick pony. No one > person is solely responsible for the world's salvation or demise. > Agreed- perhaps a good analogy would be the person who lifts the lid off a boiling pan of water on the stove. The steam escapes on its own, but it still took that one person to lift the lid.:-)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:55 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis By the way; how many different people visit FFL in a day, any idea ? I don’t know, and AFAIK, Yahoo doesn’t provide statistics. I recently deleted all the memberships whose emails were bouncing, which brought the membership under 1,000. I’m sure only a minority of them ready it regularly, but I know people who read FFL regularly who’ve never joined. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 12:20 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
On Jun 25, 2007, at 1:46 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: Maharishi created the necessary human conditions for Maitreya to again grace this world together with the Masters of Wisdom. Proof enough for me. "Heaven will walk on earth... in this generation." Maharishi And more Space Aliens are immigrating here illegally too. I believe I've also noticed an increase in black helicopter sightings. Jai Guru Dev
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of jim_flanegin > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:19 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis > > > > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual > momentum of the world." > > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > > > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they haven't?:- ) > > You guys are speaking in absolutes. He made a major contribution. Others > have also. Still others are and will. God is not a one-trick pony. No one > person is solely responsible for the world's salvation or demise. Agreed ! We are all responsible for the world, though some greatly evolved souls have made it more easy for the rest of us to contribute. By the way; how many different people visit FFL in a day, any idea ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > > > > > I absolutely agree with this last bit. I also think you are taking > > what I said to an absurd degree. What I have said is analogous to > > the fact that the electrification of the US wouldn't have occurred > > were it not for Edison. You probably don't see it that way. OK by > > me. However to imply that I am denigrating those who followed in > > Maharishi's footsteps, like the Vanity Fair yoga photographer, is > > not at all what I am talking about, or that anyone who has ever > > accomplished anything spiritually including any of us here, hasn't > > done so entirely on their own merits, through their own choice, and > > through their own efforts. > > > > However, someone had to revitalize the spiritual momentum of the > > world. The religions weren't doing it. The fact that it is Maharishi > > and Guru Dev doesn't matter much. It could have been anyone else. > > Reality check: Its just that it wasn't, though Yogananda did a great > > job of softening up the soil in the West so to speak. > > > > And last, this implication that Maharishi and Guru Dev did this and > > therefore it reflects on me somehow is just plain nonsensical. I > > hope that clarifies to you what I have said originally. In a > > nutshell I said what I said without any further implications or > > conclusions to be drawn. A settled mind. It is what it is, and no > > more. :-) > > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual momentum of the world." > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? Maharishi created the necessary human conditions for Maitreya to again grace this world together with the Masters of Wisdom. Proof enough for me. "Heaven will walk on earth... in this generation." Maharishi
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jim_flanegin Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:19 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Photos of Yogis > According to you MMY is perfect and "revitalized the spiritual momentum of the world." > Do tell, oh settled mind, where is your proof of this? > Maharishi *and* Guru Dev. Do you have any proof that they haven't?:-) You guys are speaking in absolutes. He made a major contribution. Others have also. Still others are and will. God is not a one-trick pony. No one person is solely responsible for the world’s salvation or demise. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 12:20 PM
