[FairfieldLife] Re: "There is no God"

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 It is the tradition in western civilization as influenced by the Greek and 
Judeo-Christian culture to use human rational thought to prove truths in 
philosophy and thinking.  It is a way or another way to describe "bliss" or 
pure consciousness in vedic thought.
 

 It was part of Osho's brand of thinking to be controversial and rebellious in 
his assessment of western and Hindu cultural ideas.  For this reason, I have my 
doubts about his motives and accuracy of thinking.  But Osho had his audience 
who accepted his thoughts.  In other words, the sheep know the voice of their 
shepherd. 
 

 It is refreshing to understand this idea in the light off "being established 
in the Self, perform actions."  It is wise to remember MMY's words:  Not 
thinking is only good while in meditation.  Meaning, it is acceptable to use 
one's rationale and brains to prove the validity of human actions and thoughts. 
 That is why he tried to prove the validity of TM ideas using science and 
physics.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Thx, whether speculation or not, his assertion is that there is no "Creator" 
God who creates the universe and who is an all-powerful Personality like the 
Christian Yahweh or like Krishna.
 Then, he goes on to say that in his opinion, one should do away with the the 
term "God", since it implies a separate Entity, like Yahweh.
 Furthermore, OSHO goes on to say that there's something "better" than a God: 
Pure Consciousness.
 
 So what's your opinion, and why is your opinion not a speculation?
 Thanks, Shalom
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "There is no God"

[yifux...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Thx, whether speculation or not, his assertion is that there is no "Creator" 
God who creates the universe and who is an all-powerful Personality like the 
Christian Yahweh or like Krishna.
 Then, he goes on to say that in his opinion, one should do away with the the 
term "God", since it implies a separate Entity, like Yahweh.
 Furthermore, OSHO goes on to say that there's something "better" than a God: 
Pure Consciousness.
 
 So what's your opinion, and why is your opinion not a speculation?
 Thanks, Shalom
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "There is no God"

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 



 Osho was speculating.  He really did not know what he was saying.  But can he 
return back from the dead and tell his disciples that he was right?
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 4 min lecture by OSHO: "There is no God"
 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31WdaBusl2Q 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31WdaBusl2Q
 

 Jai Sakyamuni Buddha

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary, gimmel, dalet (god, gad) :D

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Trump wins, Hillary steals?
 

 HILLARY STEALS THIS ELECTION, 2016 LOOKS GRIM. BIBLE CODE REVEALS MORE 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmqpvcMFmzM 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmqpvcMFmzM 
 
 HILLARY STEALS THIS ELECTION, 2016 LOOKS ... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmqpvcMFmzM SO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO WINS THE 
ELECTION? i told you months ago this would happenINCREDIBLE DETAILS ENCODED 
3200 years ago in...
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmqpvcMFmzM 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary, gimmel, dalet (god, gad) :D

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Well, I guess using his method, one find almost anything
 one wants??
 

 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It

['Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 8:29 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, 
We Must Let It

 

  

I can't find any other newsource that quotes him saying things quite that 
extreme about God and Jesus and coimate change.

 

 

THis feels more like something The Onion might write, but you never know.

 

That was my impression. Let me know if you find out one way or the other. Seems 
too nutty to be true, but that’s the way the Right Wing rolls these days.

 

 

L



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , 
rick@... mailto:rick@...  wrote :


Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It


   

Written by  http://www.newslo.com/author/alex-kuzio/ Alex Kuzio May 12th 2014

 

WASHINGTON – Republican Senator Marco Rubio (FL), a prominent Christian and 
noted skeptic of climate change science, yesterday argued that Americans  
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html
 should resist efforts by the federal government to curb carbon dioxide 
emissions. Sen. Rubio, who is a likely candidate for president in 2016, said 
that such programs would be “against God’s Will,” since “for all we know, God 
wants the Earth to get warmer.”

Speaking at a luncheon with potential donors, Rubio admitted that “it’s getting 
more and more difficult to deny that the Earth is getting hotter—just look at 
the new NASA report.”

Rubio was referring to two studies  
http://www.businessinsider.com/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-means-2014-5 
released Monday which indicate that the “melting of the Western Antarctic Ice 
sheet is unstoppable, and the glaciers are doomed to collapse and melt into the 
sea,” which will raise sea levels significantly, leaving much of the world’s 
coastal cities underwater.

“So yeah, I don’t deny it’s happening,” Rubio said. “But what we absolutely 
cannot say for sure is that a warming Earth is not just part of God’s plan,” 
Rubio explained. “God knows what He’s doing, and it pleases Him to see half of 
Manhattan underwater and Miami wiped out completely, then we cannot stand in 
His way.”

Rubio is a Roman Catholic, although he and his family practiced as Mormons for 
a time. He has said that he believes “with all [his] heart that God still 
destines for us an even better future and the opportunity to continue to serve 
as an inspiration to the world.”

Today Rubio said that climate change doesn’t necessarily dash the hopes for a 
better future. “God destines us for a better future, and rising sea levels are 
a part of that, then it must be for the best,” he said.

Rubio’s remarks follow those he made on Sunday, when he told “This Week” host 
George Stephanopoulos that he does not believe climate change is the result of 
human activity.

“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our 
climate the way these scientists are portraying it… [and] I do not believe that 
the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will 
destroy our economy,” Rubio added.

Today the senator clarified those remarks. “What I meant was that Jesus Himself 
is probably responsible for global warming,” he said. “I can’t tell you exactly 
why he’s doing it, but that’s what Faith is for—trusting that Jesus is warming 
up the planet so we can all live in water parks or something equally awesome.”

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It

[j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

The answer lies on the website, itself:

 

 http://www.newslo.com/about-us/ http://www.newslo.com/about-us/
 

 JUST ENOUGH NEWS…Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. 
Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is 
enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is 
fact and what is satire. Newslo’s “No Need to Satirize” brings you completely 
factual stories that are so ridiculous, they don’t need our trademark touch. 
Whenever you see #NNTS, you’re reading COMPLETELY real news that only seems too 
absurd to be true.
 

 Read the story on the website, and you can see what's factual and what's not:
 

 http://www.newslo.com/senator-rubio/ http://www.newslo.com/senator-rubio/
 

 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It

['Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]]

I sent this to a conservative friend. He said:

 

If you don’t like carbon dioxide I think you should stop breathing.

 

The climate changes whether you like it or not.  We’ve been through many cycles 
of warming and cooling since the beginning of time.  

 

The United States is the cleanest place on earth.  Talk to China and India 
about pollution.  Get them to agree to stop polluting and then come back and 
talk to me about it.  I might be waiting a long, long time.

 

The kind of changes you want would absolutely wreck our economy.  

 

You worry too much.  

---

I replied: 

 

Climate change will do much more harm to our economy than any efforts we might 
make to curb it. I just saw a National Geographic article which showed what the 
world would look like if all the ice melted. That may or may not ever happen, 
but scientists are now predicting a 14 ft. sea level rise in the next 100 
years. Maybe more, the way things are going. What will the inundation of our 
(and the world’s) coastal cities do to the economy?

 

This can be seen as an economic opportunity. When the Russians put up Sputnik, 
we rose to the challenge and were on the moon in a little over a decade. That 
had huge economic benefits in terms of technological innovations. We could do 
the same with alternative energy technologies, but the fossil fuel industry is 
doing its best to thwart that, and the Republican party is in bed with them. 
Meanwhile, other countries are forging ahead with alternative energy 
technologies, and will reap the economic advantage. 

 

 

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:05 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to 
Change, We Must Let It

 

  

The answer lies on the website, itself:

 

http://www.newslo.com/about-us/

 

JUST ENOUGH NEWS…Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. 
Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is 
enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is 
fact and what is satire.

Newslo’s “No Need to Satirize” brings you completely factual stories that are 
so ridiculous, they don’t need our trademark touch. Whenever you see #NNTS, 
you’re reading COMPLETELY real news that only seems too absurd to be true.

 

Read the story on the website, and you can see what's factual and what's not:

 

http://www.newslo.com/senator-rubio/

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

I can't find any other newsource that quotes him saying things quite that 
extreme about God and Jesus and coimate change. 

 

 THis feels more like something The Onion might write, but you never know.
 

 

 L
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote :

 Senator Rubio: If God Wants the Climate to Change, We Must Let It


 Written by Alex Kuzio http://www.newslo.com/author/alex-kuzio/ May 12th 2014
  

 WASHINGTON – Republican Senator Marco Rubio (FL), a prominent Christian and 
noted skeptic of climate change science, yesterday argued that Americans should 
resist efforts 
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html
 by the federal government to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Sen. Rubio, who is 
a likely candidate for president in 2016, said that such programs would be 
“against God’s Will,” since “for all we know, God wants the Earth to get 
warmer.”
 Speaking at a luncheon with potential donors, Rubio admitted that “it’s 
getting more and more difficult to deny that the Earth is getting hotter—just 
look at the new NASA report.”
 Rubio was referring to two studies released Monday 
http://www.businessinsider.com/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-means-2014-5 
which indicate that the “melting of the Western Antarctic Ice sheet is 
unstoppable, and the glaciers are doomed to collapse and melt into the sea,” 
which will raise sea levels significantly, leaving much of the world’s coastal 
cities underwater.
 “So yeah, I don’t deny it’s happening,” Rubio said. “But what we absolutely 
cannot say for sure is that a warming Earth is not just part of God’s plan,” 
Rubio explained. “God knows what He’s doing, and it pleases Him to see half of 
Manhattan underwater and Miami wiped out completely, then we cannot stand in 
His way.”
 Rubio is a Roman Catholic, although he and his family practiced as Mormons for 
a time. He has said that he believes “with all [his] heart that God still 
destines for us an even better future and the opportunity to continue to serve 
as an inspiration to the world.”
 Today Rubio said that climate change doesn’t necessarily dash the hopes for a 
better future. “God destines us for a better future, and rising sea levels are 
a part of that, then it must be for the best,” he said.
 Rubio’s remarks follow those he made on Sunday, when he told “This Week” host 
George Stephanopoulos that he does not believe climate change is the result of 
human activity.
 “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our 
climate the way these scientists are portraying it… [and] I do not believe that 
the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will 
destroy our economy,” Rubio added.
 Today the senator clarified those remarks. “What I meant was that Jesus 
Himself is probably responsible for global warming,” he said. “I can’t tell you 
exactly why he’s doing it, but that’s what Faith is for—trusting that Jesus is 
warming up the planet so we can all live in water parks or something equally 
awesome.”

[FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Like trying to find a needle in a haystack, with a bulldozer. Oh well, I 
suppose it at least gets the silly scientists thinking about God. May they 
stumble on!
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 That's one of the questions posed by this excellent article from Salon.com. 

 

 Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates visions of God 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/
 

 
 
 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/
 
 Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates vision... Major figures like 
Joan of Arc and Dostoyevsky claimed supernatural visions. Why their brains 
could hold the answer


 
 View on www.salon.com 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/;
 class=ygrps-yiv-957161395link-enhancr-card-url 
ygrps-yiv-957161395link-enhancr-element
 Preview by Yahoo
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 That's one of the questions posed by this excellent article from Salon.com. 

 

 Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates visions of God 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/
 

 
 
 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/
 
 Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates vision... Major figures like 
Joan of Arc and Dostoyevsky claimed supernatural visions. Why their brains 
could hold the answer


 
 View on www.salon.com 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/;
 class=ygrps-yiv-97846083link-enhancr-card-url 
ygrps-yiv-97846083link-enhancr-element
 Preview by Yahoo
 

 

 

 Interesting article, it almost makes one want to become epileptic. However, I 
am not sure what Bawee's point is by posting this. I would think most people 
realize that as long as most of us remain standing here on this planet our 
ultimate sensory organ is our brain. Of course our perceptions, be they as 
mundane as tasting orange juice or as profound as having dinner with Christ 
himself while floating in some cloud, are governed by the activity of our 
brains. We sort of had this conversation back when we were all talking about 
near death experiences here. Just because you can link a cosmic or unusual 
experience to a brain function doesn't invalidate it. Of course you can 
correspond certain activity in the brain or release of chemicals to what it is 
you are experiencing. There will usually always be some relationship between 
the brain and what it is one is saying, doing, feeling. (I think the guy who 
wrote Proof of Heaven has since been debunked so his time being brain dead 
while in his coma discounts his having remained conscious even though his brain 
was 100% non-functioning.) Unfortunately, the cases cited in this article are 
all of people who lived before EEG machines and more modern medicine that could 
have proved, without a doubt, the existence of epilepsy. So what we are left 
with is conjecture, but interesting nevertheless.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like the 
point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it 
seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have 
enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event 
and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person 
lives a beneficial life.

It would be great to study contemporary people like Jill Bolte Taylor, author 
of My Stroke of Genius. 


On Monday, May 12, 2014 8:38 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
  




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :


That's one of the questions posed by this excellent article from Salon.com. 


Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates visions of God

 
   Heaven is for neuroscience: How the
brain creates vision...
Major figures like Joan of Arc and Dostoyevsky claimed supernatural visions. 
Why their brains could hold the answer  
View on www.salon.com Preview by Yahoo  


Interesting article, it almost makes one want to become epileptic. However, I 
am not sure what Bawee's point is by posting this. I would think most people 
realize that as long as most of us remain standing here on this planet our 
ultimate sensory organ is our brain. Of course our perceptions, be they as 
mundane as tasting orange juice or as profound as having dinner with Christ 
himself while floating in some cloud, are governed by the activity of our 
brains. We sort of had this conversation back when we were all talking about 
near death experiences here. Just because you can link a cosmic or unusual 
experience to a brain function doesn't invalidate it. Of course you can 
correspond certain activity in the brain or release of chemicals to what it is 
you are experiencing. There will usually always be some relationship between 
the brain and what it is one is saying, doing, feeling. (I think the guy who 
wrote Proof of Heaven has since been debunked so his
 time being brain dead while in his coma discounts his having remained 
conscious even though his brain was 100% non-functioning.) Unfortunately, the 
cases cited in this article are all of people who lived before EEG machines and 
more modern medicine that could have proved, without a doubt, the existence of 
epilepsy. So what we are left with is conjecture, but interesting nevertheless.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like 
the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it 
seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have 
enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event 
and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person 
lives a beneficial life.
 

 I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is 
or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think 
what Bawee was doing here was his usual 
let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. He was posting this to imply 
that visionaries or those who have had spiritual or revelatory experiences were 
most likely diseased in some way. I wonder if he was frothing at the mouth and 
writhing while witnessing Rama levitate. 
 

 It would be great to study contemporary people like Jill Bolte Taylor, author 
of My Stroke of Genius. 


 On Monday, May 12, 2014 8:38 AM, awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 That's one of the questions posed by this excellent article from Salon.com. 

 

 Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates visions of God 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/
 

 
 
 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/
 
 Heaven is for neuroscience: How the brain creates vision... Major figures like 
Joan of Arc and Dostoyevsky claimed supernatural visions. Why their brains 
could hold the answer


 
 View on www.salon.com 
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/heaven_is_for_neuroscience_how_the_brain_creates_visions_of_god/
 Preview by Yahoo
 

 

 

 Interesting article, it almost makes one want to become epileptic. However, I 
am not sure what Bawee's point is by posting this. I would think most people 
realize that as long as most of us remain standing here on this planet our 
ultimate sensory organ is our brain. Of course our perceptions, be they as 
mundane as tasting orange juice or as profound as having dinner with Christ 
himself while floating in some cloud, are governed by the activity of our 
brains. We sort of had this conversation back when we were all talking about 
near death experiences here. Just because you can link a cosmic or unusual 
experience to a brain function doesn't invalidate it. Of course you can 
correspond certain activity in the brain or release of chemicals to what it is 
you are experiencing. There will usually always be some relationship between 
the brain and what it is one is saying, doing, feeling. (I think the guy who 
wrote Proof of Heaven has since been debunked so his time being brain dead 
while in his coma discounts his having remained conscious even though his brain 
was 100% non-functioning.) Unfortunately, the cases cited in this article are 
all of people who lived before EEG machines and more modern medicine that could 
have proved, without a doubt, the existence of epilepsy. So what we are left 
with is conjecture, but interesting nevertheless.




 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :


hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like the 
point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it 
seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have 
enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event 
and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person 
lives a beneficial life.

I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is 
or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think 
what Bawee was doing here was his usual 
let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. 

If so, what does it say about YOU that you got your buttons pushed yet again?  
:-)  :-)  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?

[authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Barry just hates it when people laugh at his button-pushing attempts. That's 
why he snipped this from his quote of Ann's post: 

 He was posting this to imply that visionaries or those who have had spiritual 
or revelatory experiences were most likely diseased in some way. I wonder if he 
was frothing at the mouth and writhing while witnessing Rama levitate. 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 From: awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like 
the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it 
seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have 
enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event 
and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person 
lives a beneficial life.
 

 I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is 
or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think 
what Bawee was doing here was his usual 
let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. 










If so, what does it say about YOU that you got your buttons pushed yet again?  
:-)  :-)  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 From: awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like 
the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it 
seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have 
enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event 
and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person 
lives a beneficial life.
 

 I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is 
or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think 
what Bawee was doing here was his usual 
let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. 










If so, what does it say about YOU that you got your buttons pushed yet again?  
:-)  :-)  :-)

 

 You couldn't find my button if I guided your hand there myself. Dream on 
loser, you haven't even figured out the first thing about me. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no God.

[John]

Why would you believe watermelon?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:

 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCL4dXUtblg

[FairfieldLife] Re: There is no God.

[David]

That was terrific. Thanks.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:

 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCL4dXUtblg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  
  
  I am not sure about this.  For one thing, don't Christians take their 
  Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?  What do you think they take 
  him as?  That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the 
  Christians see him more than a prophet, but equal to God.  If you think of 
  God more in the Eastern way, which means not a personal God, then it is 
  easier to see how a man can express that he is equal to God, that is, if he 
  now locates his identity with the principle of consciousness itself.  If 
  someone has defeated the ego, one's limited imperfections, and is now 
  completely clear and open to the transcendent, can he not say he IS God, in 
  essence?  
   I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education 
  system.  ~Avram3
  
  Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God.  Why do you 
  think people pray to Jesus?  The son of God...I have never thought he was 
  God.  Never.  I refuse.  Read from Sentence 3 through the end.  Pretty much 
  sums it up don't ya think?  Or? What else?  Duality/Reality?  Do we ever 
  defeat the ego?  Whaddya think?  Didn't Jim used to address this kind of 
  stuff?  
 
 Fundamental Christians believe that Jesus is the ONLY son of God, this(IMO)is 
 mistaken. We all have the power to realize our 'Son-ship' with God, and, in 
 time, will all realize this latent potential as this, is, the Divine Plan.

Yes, and the Christian Bible distinguishes between the Sons of Man (regular 
humans) and the Son of God (Jesus).  More liberal Christians would agree with 
you, that each soul has the capacity to recognize that they really are a Son of 
God, that our idea of Enlightenment is the equivalent of becoming a Son of God.
 
 The ego can never say it is God, better to say God is the 'I' in 
 meperhaps. Like you suggested, the ego stands as the imposter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 snip
 I think Yogananda wrote some long translations and commentary of the Gita 
 from a Christian perspective, explaining the similarities between 
 Hinduism/Gita and Christianity, what the terms in the Bible really mean in 
 Hindu terms etc. Yogananda claimed to see Jesus and talk with him. He was 
 devoted to Jesus and saw him as a realized Master.
 
 
 This is completely consistent with my premise that there are many prophets, 
 but only one ultimate God/Energy/Universe.  Tee Hee.  

When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you!  Reading Yogananda 
can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing.
 
 
  From: Susan wayback71@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
  
 
   
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  
  
  I am not sure about this.  For one thing, don't Christians take their 
  Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?  What do you think they 
  take him as?
 
 One of 3 different manifestations of the Divine: God (unmanifest), the 
 earthy/human manifestation is the Son, or Jesus, and the Holy Spirit/Holy 
 Ghost, which is not manifest like Jesus but is the active agent of God in the 
 universe and on earth. All are equal aspects of the Divine, with God as the 
 more Unbounded/Unmanifest version. Jesus had to go thru an evolution process 
 to realize his true nature as the Son, though.
 
 That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the Christians see him 
 more than a prophet, but equal to God.  If you think of God more in the 
 Eastern way, which means not a personal God, then it is easier to see how a 
 man can express that he is equal to God, that is, if he now locates his 
 identity with the principle of consciousness itself.  If someone has 
 defeated the ego, one's limited imperfections, and is now completely clear 
 and open to the transcendent, can he not say he IS God, in essence?  
 
 Most mainstream Christians would agree with this understanding, that Jesus, 
 even while representing God on earth, was also human and had to go thru 
 typical human suffering and growth until he became pure enough to realize his 
 divinity.  Still, they think of Jesus as a special human since he is God's 
 Son and his personal mission was to send a message about God to humanity.  
 And somehow (can't get this straight) his death wiped out humanity's sins, or 
 wiped out that bad karma for all believers in Jesus.
 
   I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education 
  system.  ~Avram3
  
  Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God.
 
 I think most evangelicals feel that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior 
 and as the Son of God, then you won't be saved from all your sins by Jesus 
 and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast to more 
 mainstream Christianity, where many churches believe that there are many 
 paths to God, but theirs is Jesus.  They tend to think that good people of 
 many faiths will be with God after death, whether thru Jesus or their own 
 faith.  One of the main ideas in Christianity is that good works do not earn 
 you admission to Heaven.  It is the Belief that counts, even if that belief 
 in God/Jesus/Holy Ghost happens in the last minutes of a nasty life.  So, if 
 you accept Jesus then, and really believe, you are saved.  As opposed to 
 Judaism, where faith is not an issue, but observances are important.
 
  Why do you think people pray to Jesus? 
 
 They pray to Jesus for assistance or comfort.  And Catholics also pray to the 
 mother of Jesus (Mary) and a whole host of saints (formerly alive people who 
 have been granted sainthood due to performing miracles).  They believe that 
 Jesus or Mary or saints or God can intervene in our affairs.  Similar to 
 Hindus doing yagyas and making offerings to get some assistance and to change 
 earthly circumstances.
 
 The son of God...I have never thought he was God.  Never.  I refuse.  Read 
 from Sentence 3 through the end.  Pretty much sums it up don't ya think? 
  Or? What else?  Duality/Reality?  Do we ever defeat the ego?  Whaddya 
 think? 
 
 Sounds as if Jesus had some good spiritual experiences and was charismatic 
 and had some followers who got some real benefits from his very powerful 
 darshan. People probably misunderstood much of what he talked about.
 
 Didn't Jim used to address this kind of stuff? 
 
 I think Yogananda wrote some long translations and commentary of the Gita 
 from a Christian perspective, explaining the similarities between 
 Hinduism/Gita and Christianity, what the terms in the Bible really mean in 
 Hindu terms etc.Yogananda claimed to see Jesus and talk with him.  He was 
 devoted to Jesus

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
  
   I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  
   
   I am not sure about this.  For one thing, don't Christians take their 
   Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?  What do you think they 
   take him as?
  
  One of 3 different manifestations of the Divine: God (unmanifest), the 
  earthy/human manifestation is the Son, or Jesus, and the Holy Spirit/Holy 
  Ghost, which is not manifest like Jesus but is the active agent of God in 
  the universe and on earth. All are equal aspects of the Divine, with God as 
  the more Unbounded/Unmanifest version. Jesus had to go thru an evolution 
  process to realize his true nature as the Son, though.
 
 You might like the Hindu anecdote of SAT, TAT, OM, or the Father, Son and 
 Holy Spirit.  The Father being the unmanifest Being, the OM Mother 
 Divine(Prakriti)and the Son being the pure reflection (formless) of Being (IN 
 CREATION) also what MMY called Brahm (pure light, the light of God).

Yes, I do.  I had forgotten this, thanks for bringing it up.
  
  That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the Christians see 
  him more than a prophet, but equal to God.  If you think of God more in the 
  Eastern way, which means not a personal God, then it is easier to see how a 
  man can express that he is equal to God, that is, if he now locates his 
  identity with the principle of consciousness itself.  If someone has 
  defeated the ego, one's limited imperfections, and is now completely clear 
  and open to the transcendent, can he not say he IS God, in essence?  
  
  Most mainstream Christians would agree with this understanding, that Jesus, 
  even while representing God on earth, was also human and had to go thru 
  typical human suffering and growth until he became pure enough to realize 
  his divinity.  Still, they think of Jesus as a special human since he is 
  God's Son and his personal mission was to send a message about God to 
  humanity.  And somehow (can't get this straight) his death wiped out 
  humanity's sins, or wiped out that bad karma for all believers in Jesus.
  
    I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education 
   system.  ~Avram3
   
   Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God.
  
  I think most evangelicals feel that if you don't accept Jesus as your 
  savior and as the Son of God, then you won't be saved from all your sins 
  by Jesus and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast to 
  more mainstream Christianity, where many churches believe that there are 
  many paths to God, but theirs is Jesus.  They tend to think that good 
  people of many faiths will be with God after death, whether thru Jesus or 
  their own faith.  One of the main ideas in Christianity is that good works 
  do not earn you admission to Heaven.  It is the Belief that counts, even if 
  that belief in God/Jesus/Holy Ghost happens in the last minutes of a nasty 
  life.  So, if you accept Jesus then, and really believe, you are saved. 
   As opposed to Judaism, where faith is not an issue, but observances are 
  important.
  
    Why do you think people pray to Jesus? 
  
  They pray to Jesus for assistance or comfort.  And Catholics also pray to 
  the mother of Jesus (Mary) and a whole host of saints (formerly alive 
  people who have been granted sainthood due to performing miracles).  They 
  believe that Jesus or Mary or saints or God can intervene in our affairs.  
  Similar to Hindus doing yagyas and making offerings to get some assistance 
  and to change earthly circumstances.
  
  The son of God...I have never thought he was God.  Never.  I refuse.  Read 
  from Sentence 3 through the end.  Pretty much sums it up don't ya think?  
  Or? What else?  Duality/Reality?  Do we ever defeat the ego?  Whaddya 
  think? 
  
  Sounds as if Jesus had some good spiritual experiences and was charismatic 
  and had some followers who got some real benefits from his very powerful 
  darshan. People probably misunderstood much of what he talked about.
  
  Didn't Jim used to address this kind of stuff? 
  
  I think Yogananda wrote some long translations and commentary of the Gita 
  from a Christian perspective, explaining the similarities between 
  Hinduism/Gita and Christianity, what the terms in the Bible really mean in 
  Hindu terms etc.Yogananda claimed to see Jesus and talk with him.  He 
  was devoted to Jesus and saw him as a realized Master.
  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God

[Emily Reyn]

Hm.when you are not in your believing in spirituality mode, what do 
you think?  



 From: Susan waybac...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:08 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 snip
 I think Yogananda wrote some long translations and commentary of the Gita 
 from a Christian perspective, explaining the similarities between 
 Hinduism/Gita and Christianity, what the terms in the Bible really mean in 
 Hindu terms etc. Yogananda claimed to see Jesus and talk with him. He was 
 devoted to Jesus and saw him as a realized Master.
 
 
 This is completely consistent with my premise that there are many prophets, 
 but only one ultimate God/Energy/Universe.  Tee Hee.  

When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you!  Reading Yogananda 
can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing.
 
 
  From: Susan wayback71@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
 
 
   
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  
  
  I am not sure about this.  For one thing, don't Christians take their 
  Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?  What do you think they 
  take him as?
 
 One of 3 different manifestations of the Divine: God (unmanifest), the 
 earthy/human manifestation is the Son, or Jesus, and the Holy Spirit/Holy 
 Ghost, which is not manifest like Jesus but is the active agent of God in the 
 universe and on earth. All are equal aspects of the Divine, with God as the 
 more Unbounded/Unmanifest version. Jesus had to go thru an evolution process 
 to realize his true nature as the Son, though.
 
 That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the Christians see him 
 more than a prophet, but equal to God.  If you think of God more in the 
 Eastern way, which means not a personal God, then it is easier to see how a 
 man can express that he is equal to God, that is, if he now locates his 
 identity with the principle of consciousness itself.  If someone has 
 defeated the ego, one's limited imperfections, and is now completely clear 
 and open to the transcendent, can he not say he IS God, in essence?  
 
 Most mainstream Christians would agree with this understanding, that Jesus, 
 even while representing God on earth, was also human and had to go thru 
 typical human suffering and growth until he became pure enough to realize his 
 divinity.  Still, they think of Jesus as a special human since he is God's 
 Son and his personal mission was to send a message about God to humanity.  
 And somehow (can't get this straight) his death wiped out humanity's sins, or 
 wiped out that bad karma for all believers in Jesus.
 
   I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education 
  system.  ~Avram3
  
  Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God.
 
 I think most evangelicals feel that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior 
 and as the Son of God, then you won't be saved from all your sins by Jesus 
 and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast to more 
 mainstream Christianity, where many churches believe that there are many 
 paths to God, but theirs is Jesus.  They tend to think that good people of 
 many faiths will be with God after death, whether thru Jesus or their own 
 faith.  One of the main ideas in Christianity is that good works do not earn 
 you admission to Heaven.  It is the Belief that counts, even if that belief 
 in God/Jesus/Holy Ghost happens in the last minutes of a nasty life.  So, if 
 you accept Jesus then, and really believe, you are saved.  As opposed to 
 Judaism, where faith is not an issue, but observances are important.
 
  Why do you think people pray to Jesus? 
 
 They pray to Jesus for assistance or comfort.  And Catholics also pray to the 
 mother of Jesus (Mary) and a whole host of saints (formerly alive people who 
 have been granted sainthood due to performing miracles).  They believe that 
 Jesus or Mary or saints or God can intervene in our affairs.  Similar to 
 Hindus doing yagyas and making offerings to get some assistance and to change 
 earthly circumstances.
 
 The son of God...I have never thought he was God.  Never.  I refuse.  Read 
 from Sentence 3 through the end.  Pretty much sums it up don't ya think? 
  Or? What else?  Duality/Reality?  Do we ever defeat the ego?  Whaddya 
 think? 
 
 Sounds as if Jesus had some good spiritual experiences and was charismatic 
 and had some followers who got some real benefits from his very powerful 
 darshan. People probably misunderstood much of what he talked about.
 
 Didn't Jim used to address this kind of stuff? 
 
 I think Yogananda wrote some

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God

[wayback71]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Hm.when you are not in your believing in spirituality mode, what do 
 you think?  

Then, I think that our religious and spiritual beliefs are a way of describing 
experiences that happen in the brain and feel like they are outside of us, feel 
like they point to something bigger and meaningful and orderly.  Our beliefs 
accurately describe the special experiences of generations and generations of 
people. And we built up belief systems around those experiences - and tossed in 
some wishful thinking, too.  I think believing in some of these religions can 
make us feel better, give us hope, comfort us in the face of the possibility 
that there is nothing after the body and brain die. 

So Jesus could have been enlightened and in touch with his God (internally) and 
feel one with God, and have incredibly powerful energy or darshan that he 
radiated, but this might not mean that there is more to him that lives after he 
dies, only that he had a nervous system that functioned in a special way that 
just relatively few humans have had happen. 

This does not mean that there  is no such thing as enlightenment, but that 
perhaps enlightenment is a style of brain functioning, that's it.  I prefer the 
more spiritual and religious way of looking at life and feel better and happier 
when I think like that.  I like to believe that enlightenment is a window into 
a bigger Reality.  That there is more than the brain generating consciousness. 
That, instead, consciousness generates everything. I just sometimes have some 
doubts.
 
 
 
  From: Susan wayback71@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:08 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
  
 
   
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  snip
  I think Yogananda wrote some long translations and commentary of the Gita 
  from a Christian perspective, explaining the similarities between 
  Hinduism/Gita and Christianity, what the terms in the Bible really mean in 
  Hindu terms etc. Yogananda claimed to see Jesus and talk with him. He was 
  devoted to Jesus and saw him as a realized Master.
  
  
  This is completely consistent with my premise that there are many prophets, 
  but only one ultimate God/Energy/Universe.  Tee Hee.  
 
 When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you!  Reading 
 Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing.
  
  
   From: Susan wayback71@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
  
  
    
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
  
   I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  
   
   I am not sure about this.  For one thing, don't Christians take their 
   Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?  What do you think they 
   take him as?
  
  One of 3 different manifestations of the Divine: God (unmanifest), the 
  earthy/human manifestation is the Son, or Jesus, and the Holy Spirit/Holy 
  Ghost, which is not manifest like Jesus but is the active agent of God in 
  the universe and on earth. All are equal aspects of the Divine, with God 
  as the more Unbounded/Unmanifest version. Jesus had to go thru an evolution 
  process to realize his true nature as the Son, though.
  
  That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the Christians see 
  him more than a prophet, but equal to God.  If you think of God more in 
  the Eastern way, which means not a personal God, then it is easier to see 
  how a man can express that he is equal to God, that is, if he now locates 
  his identity with the principle of consciousness itself.  If someone has 
  defeated the ego, one's limited imperfections, and is now completely clear 
  and open to the transcendent, can he not say he IS God, in essence?  
  
  Most mainstream Christians would agree with this understanding, that Jesus, 
  even while representing God on earth, was also human and had to go thru 
  typical human suffering and growth until he became pure enough to realize 
  his divinity.  Still, they think of Jesus as a special human since he is 
  God's Son and his personal mission was to send a message about God to 
  humanity.  And somehow (can't get this straight) his death wiped out 
  humanity's sins, or wiped out that bad karma for all believers in Jesus.
  
    I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education 
   system.  ~Avram3
   
   Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God.
  
  I think most evangelicals feel that if you don't accept Jesus as your 
  savior and as the Son of God, then you won't be saved from all your sins 
  by Jesus and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in contrast

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  snip
  I think Yogananda wrote some long translations and commentary of
the Gita from a Christian perspective, explaining the similarities
between Hinduism/Gita and Christianity, what the terms in the Bible
really mean in Hindu terms etc. Yogananda claimed to see Jesus and talk
with him. He was devoted to Jesus and saw him as a realized Master.
 
 
  This is completely consistent with my premise that there are many
prophets, but only one ultimate God/Energy/Universe. Â Tee Hee.
Â

 When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you! Reading
Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing.


Hello all,

When I was just a teenager fresh out of high school, my first venture
into spirituality other than Yogananda was the purchase of a five-volume
set of books entitled Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East
authored by Baird T. Spalding (ISBN 0-87516-084-0, copyright 1924, 1937,
1964). From the foreward by Mr. Spalding:

In presenting The Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East I
wish to state that I was one of a research party of eleven persons that
visited the Far East in 1894. During our stay - three and a half years -
we contacted the Great Masters of the Himalayas, who aided us in the
translation of the records...They permitted us to enter into their lives
intimately, and we were thus able to see the actual working of the great
Law as demonstrated by them...Personally, at that time, I thought the
world was not ready for this message...This book...gives the first
year's experience of the expedition in relation to the Masters...The
Masters accept that Buddha represents the Way to Enlightenment, but they
clearly set forth that Christ IS Enlightenment, or a state of
consciousness for which we are all seeking - the Christ light of every
individual; therefore, the light of every child that is born into the
world.

In addition of many miracles witnessed by the scientists, the Masters
were visited by Christ on many occasions and his teachings were
explained in light of the Eastern traditions of spiritual knowledge. It
is fascinating reading and makes perfect sense.

Well, that's my contribution to this discussion. Thanks for listening.

 
  
  From: Susan wayback71@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
 
 
  Â
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@
wrote:
  
   I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative. Â
  
   I am not sure about this.  For one thing, don't Christians
take their Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?  What do
you think they take him as?
 
  One of 3 different manifestations of the Divine: God (unmanifest),
the earthy/human manifestation is the Son, or Jesus, and the Holy
Spirit/Holy Ghost, which is not manifest like Jesus but is the active
agent of God in the universe and on earth. All are equal aspects of
the Divine, with God as the more Unbounded/Unmanifest version. Jesus had
to go thru an evolution process to realize his true nature as the Son,
though.
 
  That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the
Christians see him more than a prophet, but equal to God.  If you
think of God more in the Eastern way, which means not a personal God,
then it is easier to see how a man can express that he is equal to God,
that is, if he now locates his identity with the principle of
consciousness itself.  If someone has defeated the ego, one's
limited imperfections, and is now completely clear and open to the
transcendent, can he not say he IS God, in essence? Â
 
  Most mainstream Christians would agree with this understanding, that
Jesus, even while representing God on earth, was also human and had to
go thru typical human suffering and growth until he became pure enough
to realize his divinity. Still, they think of Jesus as a special human
since he is God's Son and his personal mission was to send a message
about God to humanity. And somehow (can't get this straight) his death
wiped out humanity's sins, or wiped out that bad karma for all believers
in Jesus.
 
   Â I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US
education system. Â ~Avram3
  
   Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God.
 
  I think most evangelicals feel that if you don't accept Jesus as
your savior and as the Son of God, then you won't be saved from all
your sins by Jesus and cannot go to Heaven in the afterlife. This is in
contrast to more mainstream Christianity, where many churches believe
that there are many paths to God, but theirs is Jesus. They tend to
think that good people of many faiths will be with God after death,
whether thru Jesus or their own faith. One of the main ideas in
Christianity is that good works do not earn you admission

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God

[Emily Reyn]

Thank you Susan and Laughinggull.  I appreciate it.  



 From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:17 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  snip
  I think Yogananda wrote some long translations and commentary of the Gita 
  from a Christian perspective, explaining the similarities between 
  Hinduism/Gita and Christianity, what the terms in the Bible really mean in 
  Hindu terms etc. Yogananda claimed to see Jesus and talk with him. He was 
  devoted to Jesus and saw him as a realized Master.
  
  
  This is completely consistent with my premise that there are many prophets, 
  but only one ultimate God/Energy/Universe.  Tee Hee.  
 
 When in my believing in spirituality mode, I agree with you! Reading 
 Yogananda can be very sweet, uplifting, and convincing.

Hello all,
When I was just a teenager fresh out of high school, my first venture into 
spirituality other than Yogananda was the purchase of a five-volume set 
of books entitled Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East authored by 
Baird T. Spalding (ISBN 0-87516-084-0, copyright 1924, 1937, 1964). From the 
foreward by Mr. Spalding:
In presenting The Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East I wish to 
state that I was one of a research party of eleven persons that visited the Far 
East in 1894. During our stay - three and a half years - we contacted the Great 
Masters of the Himalayas, who aided us in the translation of the records...They 
permitted us to enter into their lives intimately, and we were thus able to see 
the actual working of the great Law as demonstrated by them...Personally, at 
that time, I thought the world was not ready for this message...This 
book...gives the first year's experience of the expedition in relation to the 
Masters...The Masters accept that Buddha represents the Way to Enlightenment, 
but they clearly set forth that Christ IS Enlightenment, or a state of 
consciousness for which we are all seeking - the Christ light of every 
individual; therefore, the light of every child that is born into the world.
In addition of many miracles witnessed by the scientists, the Masters were 
visited by Christ on many occasions and his teachings were explained in light 
of the Eastern traditions of spiritual knowledge. It is fascinating reading and 
makes perfect sense.
Well, that's my contribution to this discussion. Thanks for listening.
  
  
  From: Susan wayback71@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:46 PM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus = to God
  
  
    
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
  
   I found this paragraph interesting, if not creative.  
   
   I am not sure about this.  For one thing, don't Christians take their 
   Jesus to be equal to God, part of the trinity?  What do you think they 
   take him as?
  
  One of 3 different manifestations of the Divine: God (unmanifest), the 
  earthy/human manifestation is the Son, or Jesus, and the Holy Spirit/Holy 
  Ghost, which is not manifest like Jesus but is the active agent of God in 
  the universe and on earth. All are equal aspects of the Divine, with God 
  as the more Unbounded/Unmanifest version. Jesus had to go thru an evolution 
  process to realize his true nature as the Son, though.
  
  That's the criticism of Islam, which is precisely that the Christians see 
  him more than a prophet, but equal to God.  If you think of God more in 
  the Eastern way, which means not a personal God, then it is easier to see 
  how a man can express that he is equal to God, that is, if he now locates 
  his identity with the principle of consciousness itself.  If someone has 
  defeated the ego, one's limited imperfections, and is now completely clear 
  and open to the transcendent, can he not say he IS God, in essence?  
  
  Most mainstream Christians would agree with this understanding, that Jesus, 
  even while representing God on earth, was also human and had to go thru 
  typical human suffering and growth until he became pure enough to realize 
  his divinity. Still, they think of Jesus as a special human since he is 
  God's Son and his personal mission was to send a message about God to 
  humanity. And somehow (can't get this straight) his death wiped out 
  humanity's sins, or wiped out that bad karma for all believers in Jesus.
  
    I was taught about the divine right of Kings in the US education 
   system.  ~Avram3
   
   Of course evangelicals take their Jesus to be equal to God.
  
  I think most evangelicals feel that if you don't accept Jesus as your 
  savior and as the Son of God, then you won't be saved from all your sins

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
  of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
  that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
  seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
  self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
  which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
  makes it less ambiguous.
 
 Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
 For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
 is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
 by a semicolon.

It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 anartaxius@ wrote:
 snip
 The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
 of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
 that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
 seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
 self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
 which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
 makes it less ambiguous.
 
 Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
 For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
 is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
 by a semicolon.
 
 It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
 in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
 in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
 an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)


Let me try again - first the original:

'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, 
which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest quivering stress 
without absorbing it.'

I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:

[For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
The self is the individuating existence of a nature | 
God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
quivering stress without absorbing it.'

I can see it can be read this way:

'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] 
God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that 
self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'

I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the world:

The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being.

But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because 
absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. 
So then I am forced to write:

The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being.

There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me think 
this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is now 
completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears 
altogether.

If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so why 
not then:

The self is nature, which is absolute being.

Why have two definitions for the same?:

The self is absolute being.

Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification.

We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' 
is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. Pick 
one.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  snip
  The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
  of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
  that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
  seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
  self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
  which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
  makes it less ambiguous.
  
  Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
  For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
  is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
  by a semicolon.
  
  It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
  in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
  in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
  an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
 
 
 Let me try again - first the original:
 
 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
 presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
 
 [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]

Well, that seems to me to be the very reason why you thought
the sentence is not punctuated clearly, IMHO. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  snip
  The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
  of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
  that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
  seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
  self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
  which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
  makes it less ambiguous.
  
  Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
  For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
  is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
  by a semicolon.
  
  It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
  in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
  in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
  an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
 
 
 Let me try again - first the original:
 
 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
 presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
 
 [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
 The self is the individuating existence of a nature | 
 God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I can see it can be read this way:
 
 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] 
 God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that 
 self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the 
 world:
 
 The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being.
 
 But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because 
 absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. 
 So then I am forced to write:
 
 The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being.
 
 There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me 
 think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is 
 now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears 
 altogether.
 
 If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so 
 why not then:
 
 The self is nature, which is absolute being.
 
 Why have two definitions for the same?:
 
 The self is absolute being.
 
 Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification.
 
 We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' 
 is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. 
 Pick one.

OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how 
people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. 
I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't 
true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of 
it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Emily Reyn]

Be yourself.  Seems kinda obvious, huh?  



 From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:31 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in 
action
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  snip
  The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
  of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
  that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
  seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
  self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
  which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
  makes it less ambiguous.
  
  Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
  For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
  is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
  by a semicolon.
  
  It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
  in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
  in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
  an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
 
 
 Let me try again - first the original:
 
 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
 presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
 
 [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
 The self is the individuating existence of a nature | 
 God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I can see it can be read this way:
 
 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] 
 God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that 
 self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the 
 world:
 
 The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being.
 
 But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because 
 absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. 
 So then I am forced to write:
 
 The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being.
 
 There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me 
 think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is 
 now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears 
 altogether.
 
 If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so 
 why not then:
 
 The self is nature, which is absolute being.
 
 Why have two definitions for the same?:
 
 The self is absolute being.
 
 Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification.
 
 We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' 
 is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. 
 Pick one.

OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how 
people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. 
I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't 
true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of 
it.



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
   anartaxius@ wrote:
   snip
   The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
   of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
   that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
   seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
   self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
   which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
   quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
   makes it less ambiguous.
   
   Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
   For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
   is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
   by a semicolon.
   
   It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
   in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
   in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
   an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
  
  
  Let me try again - first the original:
  
  'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
  presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.'
  
  I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
  
  [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
 
 Well, that seems to me to be the very reason why you thought
 the sentence is not punctuated clearly, IMHO.

I did see it, but obviously I parsed the sentence incorrectly. Part of that, 
beside a lack of attention is when reading spiritual stuff there is a strong 
tendency to read between the lines based on one's own experience. One 
interprets what one reads in terms of that; there is no completely objective 
reality. For me scientific reality is about as objective as it can get.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Aspirin is good for headaches. It really does work. But if you like to suffer, 
there are ineffective things you can take for a headache.

Robin likes really convoluted intellectual stuff with strong emotional 
overtones. I prefer more simplicity. There is what is called 'you', a body, and 
there is a world outside the body. The body is in the world and is thus a part 
of the world and some value in that body experiences all of this. From the 
deepest recess of the mind to the furtherest extent of the world, it is all 
continuous and connected. If we restrict our attention to the present moment, 
not thinking of future and past or imagining things we cannot see, there is 
nothing else.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
   anartaxius@ wrote:
   snip
   The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
   of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
   that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
   seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
   self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
   which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
   quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
   makes it less ambiguous.
   
   Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
   For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
   is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
   by a semicolon.
   
   It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
   in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
   in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
   an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
  
  
  Let me try again - first the original:
  
  'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
  presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.'
  
  I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
  
  [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
  The self is the individuating existence of a nature | 
  God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its 
  highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
  
  I can see it can be read this way:
  
  'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which 
  is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold 
  that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
  
  I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the 
  world:
  
  The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being.
  
  But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because 
  absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its 
  equivalent. So then I am forced to write:
  
  The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being.
  
  There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me 
  think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence 
  is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence 
  disappears altogether.
  
  If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so 
  why not then:
  
  The self is nature, which is absolute being.
  
  Why have two definitions for the same?:
  
  The self is absolute being.
  
  Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification.
  
  We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute 
  being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 
  'being'. Pick one.
 
 OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how 
 people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. 
 I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it 
 isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around 
 any of it.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Share Long]

dear Ann, I've been on forums that had ONLY that kind of discussion!  No crop 
circles, no surf reports, no amazing poetry, no movie TV reviews, no Orion 
photos, no love, Ravi, no Assumption paintings, no moving music, etc.  No 
nothing but Being and Nothingness 24/7.  Ok, exaggerating for effect.  I'm just 
sayin FFL is fun in ways that other forums aren't.  Hmmm, that doesn't sound 
right either but gotta leave for a bit.  


Put on a black turtleneck sweater, sip some espresso, smoke some Galoise and 
simply imagine that the Seine is flowing by and Camus and Sartre are at the 
table with you (-:

PS  Still working on my naughty name...




 From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in 
action
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  snip
  The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
  of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
  that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
  seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
  self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
  which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
  makes it less ambiguous.
  
  Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
  For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
  is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
  by a semicolon.
  
  It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
  in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
  in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
  an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
 
 
 Let me try again - first the original:
 
 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
 presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
 
 [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
 The self is the individuating existence of a nature | 
 God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I can see it can be read this way:
 
 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] 
 God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that 
 self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the 
 world:
 
 The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being.
 
 But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because 
 absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. 
 So then I am forced to write:
 
 The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being.
 
 There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me 
 think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is 
 now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears 
 altogether.
 
 If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so 
 why not then:
 
 The self is nature, which is absolute being.
 
 Why have two definitions for the same?:
 
 The self is absolute being.
 
 Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification.
 
 We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' 
 is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. 
 Pick one.

OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how 
people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. 
I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't 
true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of 
it.



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 Aspirin is good for headaches. It really does work. But if you like to 
 suffer, there are ineffective things you can take for a headache.
 
 Robin likes really convoluted intellectual stuff with strong emotional 
 overtones. I prefer more simplicity. There is what is called 'you', a body, 
 and there is a world outside the body. The body is in the world and is thus a 
 part of the world and some value in that body experiences all of this. From 
 the deepest recess of the mind to the furtherest extent of the world, it is 
 all continuous and connected. If we restrict our attention to the present 
 moment, not thinking of future and past or imagining things we cannot see, 
 there is nothing else.

Hm...maybe I'll take that aspirin now.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@ wrote:
snip
The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
makes it less ambiguous.

Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
by a semicolon.

It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
   
   
   Let me try again - first the original:
   
   'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
   presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
   quivering stress without absorbing it.'
   
   I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
   
   [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
   The self is the individuating existence of a nature | 
   God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its 
   highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
   
   I can see it can be read this way:
   
   'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which 
   is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can 
   hold that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
   
   I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the 
   world:
   
   The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being.
   
   But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, 
   because absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its 
   equivalent. So then I am forced to write:
   
   The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being.
   
   There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me 
   think this over again. As you can see the context of the original 
   sentence is now completely left behind. This could go on until the 
   sentence disappears altogether.
   
   If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake 
   so why not then:
   
   The self is nature, which is absolute being.
   
   Why have two definitions for the same?:
   
   The self is absolute being.
   
   Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification.
   
   We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute 
   being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 
   'being'. Pick one.
  
  OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at 
  how people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' 
  life. I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean 
  it isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head 
  around any of it.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:

 dear Ann, I've been on forums that had ONLY that kind of discussion!  No 
 crop circles, no surf reports, no amazing poetry, no movie TV reviews, no 
 Orion photos, no love, Ravi, no Assumption paintings, no moving music, etc.  
 No nothing but Being and Nothingness 24/7.  Ok, exaggerating for effect.  
 I'm just sayin FFL is fun in ways that other forums aren't.  Hmmm, that 
 doesn't sound right either but gotta leave for a bit.  
 
 
 Put on a black turtleneck sweater, sip some espresso, smoke some Galoise and 
 simply imagine that the Seine is flowing by and Camus and Sartre are at the 
 table with you (-:

That is more my style, minus the Galoise.
 
 PS  Still working on my naughty name...

I certainly hope so.
 
 
 
 
  From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:31 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in 
 action
  
 
   
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
   anartaxius@ wrote:
   snip
   The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
   of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
   that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
   seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
   self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
   which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
   quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
   makes it less ambiguous.
   
   Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
   For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
   is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
   by a semicolon.
   
   It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
   in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
   in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
   an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
  
  
  Let me try again - first the original:
  
  'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
  presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.'
  
  I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
  
  [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
  The self is the individuating existence of a nature | 
  God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its 
  highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
  
  I can see it can be read this way:
  
  'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which 
  is] God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold 
  that self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
  
  I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the 
  world:
  
  The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being.
  
  But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because 
  absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its 
  equivalent. So then I am forced to write:
  
  The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being.
  
  There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me 
  think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence 
  is now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence 
  disappears altogether.
  
  If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so 
  why not then:
  
  The self is nature, which is absolute being.
  
  Why have two definitions for the same?:
  
  The self is absolute being.
  
  Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification.
  
  We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute 
  being' is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 
  'being'. Pick one.
 
 OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how 
 people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. 
 I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it 
 isn't true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around 
 any of it.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Ravi Chivukula]

...no love, (no) Ravi,

Oh - how must have my poor dear old Aunt suffered? How long did she suffer, at 
the hands of these frigid, frozen, frosty Neo-Advaitins? My heart is ravaged by 
an unrestrained, unabated, unconditioned fury. How glad must my aunt be, to be 
finally reunited with her loving nephew !!!


On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote:

dear Ann, I've been on forums that had ONLY that kind of discussion!  No crop 
circles, no surf reports, no amazing poetry, no movie TV reviews, no Orion 
photos, no love, Ravi, no Assumption paintings, no moving music, etc.  No 
nothing but Being and Nothingness 24/7.  Ok, exaggerating for effect.  I'm just 
sayin FFL is fun in ways that other forums aren't.  Hmmm, that doesn't sound 
right either but gotta leave for a bit.  

Put on a black turtleneck sweater, sip some espresso, smoke some Galoise and 
simply imagine that the Seine is flowing by and Camus and Sartre are at the 
table with you (-:

PS  Still working on my naughty name...

From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in 
action

 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  snip
  The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
  of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
  that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
  seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
  self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
  which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
  makes it less ambiguous.
  
  Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
  For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
  is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
  by a semicolon.
  
  It seems to me Xeno might perceive 'for' as a preposition, although
  in this case it's a conjunction, IMO. But how Xeno gets 'since'
  in that case, I have no idea whatsoever. (Perhaps 'for since' as
  an adverb /en bloc/, or stuff...)
 
 
 Let me try again - first the original:
 
 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's 
 presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I think this is how my mind broke up the sentence:
 
 [For since (I think I just mostly ignored this phrase]
 The self is the individuating existence of a nature | 
 God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I can see it can be read this way:
 
 'xxx x [T]he self is the individuating existence of a nature, [which is] 
 God's presence, which is [also] existence itself, [and which] can hold that 
 self at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it.'
 
 I would probably reduce the whole thing this way, in my own sense of the 
 world:
 
 The self is the individuating aspect of a nature, which is absolute being.
 
 But absolute being, if it is equivalent of 'a nature' seems wrong, because 
 absolute being is not an entity and needs not article 'a' for its equivalent. 
 So then I am forced to write:
 
 The self is the individuating aspect of nature, which is absolute being.
 
 There - Judy's spotting my grammatical mistake at the very least made me 
 think this over again. As you can see the context of the original sentence is 
 now completely left behind. This could go on until the sentence disappears 
 altogether.
 
 If being is absolute, it changes not, individuating must be some mistake so 
 why not then:
 
 The self is nature, which is absolute being.
 
 Why have two definitions for the same?:
 
 The self is absolute being.
 
 Then we have a definition which is just a redundancy for clarification.
 
 We could be left with either 'self' or 'absolute being', but 'absolute being' 
 is really unqualified, attribute-less, so we just have 'self' or 'being'. 
 Pick one.

OK, now I have a headache, didn't understand a word. I am just amazed at how 
people can talk about this so much and have it mean something in 'real' life. 
I'm just not made of the same stuff. I truly mean it. It doesn't mean it isn't 
true or relevant or, in fact, vital but I just can't get my head around any of 
it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote:
 
 I thought you had left Catholic philosophy behind Robin. But then you seem to 
 be bent on destroying the oneness of God in your experience. This is 
 needlessly complex, but it is quite intriguing. Hopkins, or a commentator 
 thereupon?
 
 Statements such as 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to 
 choose, and freely choose, according to his will' are not logical, whereas if 
 you wrote it this way, 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to 
 choose, according to His (God's) will' would make more sense.
 
 Perhaps Judy can explain this to me, for I am sure your commentary would pass 
 me by.


Dear Xeno,

You should rewrite his poems too.

In order to understand what Hopkins is saying here (you were right about the 
author; that's good), you need to read my favourite passage of all-time. Where 
in effect (without explicating it) Hopkins is defining the importance of 
first-person ontology. But in reading over what you have written here, I found 
[before I give you that quotation again] a remark germane to all of what 
divides us in our understanding of and belief about metaphysical ultimates:

For in fulfilling his own individuality, he is a living temple of God, he is 
another Christ, who is most himself 'when the member is in all things conformed 
to Christ. This too best brings out the nature of the man himself, as the 
lettering on a sail or device upon a flag are best seen when it fills.' For the 
self, that about the individual 'which is more distinctive than the taste of 
ale or alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnutleaf or camphor' is not 
annihilated by Christ's presence, but rather brought to its most perfect stress 
of pitch, to the actualizing of its fullest human potentiality. For since the 
self is the individuating existence of a nature, God's presence, which is 
existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest quivering stress without 
absorbing it*.

Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves--goes itself; *myself* it speaks and spells,
Crying *What I do is me: for that I came*.

Do you see, Xeno how antithetical Hopkins's philosophy (and insight) is to the 
philosophy that is the priori here on FFL?

And you, evidently, are *embodying* this anti-Hopkins philosophy. 

But either Hopkins is right, or Xeno is right. I believe I get more of the 
instress of reality inside Hopkins than I do inside your words.

I say more: the just man justices;
Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God's eyes what in God's eye he is--
Christ

and:

Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men's faces,

And here is what LSD, TM, Maharishi, Unity, the East more or less denied--but 
this truth drives my life, Xeno, the truth held inside this claim of Hopkins. 
It is the most beautiful and important truth I know. Much love to you as you 
read it again:

I find myself both as man and as myself something most determined and 
distinctive, at pitch, more distinctive and higher pitched than anything else I 
see; I find myself with my pleasures and pains, my powers and my experiences, 
my deserts and guilt, my shame and sense of beauty, my dangers, hopes, fears, 
and all my fate, more important to myself than anything I see. And when I ask 
where does all this throng and stack of being, so rich, so distinctive, so 
important, come from/ nothing I see can answer me. And this whether I speak of 
human nature or of my individuality, my selfbeing. For human nature, being more 
highly pitched, selved, and distinctive than anything in the world, can have 
been developed, evolved, condensed, from the vastness of the world not anyhow 
or by the working of common powers but only by one of finer or higher pitch and 
determination than itself and certainly than any that elsewhere we see, for 
this power had to force forward the starting or stubborn elements to the one 
pitch required. And this is much more true when we consider the mind; when I 
consider my selfbeing, my consciousness and feeling of myself, that taste of 
myself, of *I* and *me* above and in all things, which is more distinctive than 
the taste of ale or alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnutleaf or 
camphor, and is incommunicable by any means to another man (as when I was a 
child I used to ask myself: What must it be to be someone else?). Nothing else 
in nature comes near this unspeakable stress of pitch, distinctiveness, and 
selving, this selfbeing of my own. Nothing explains it or resembles it, except 
so far as this, that other men themselves have the same feeling. But this only 
multiplies the phenomena to be explained so far as the cases are like and do 
resemble. But to me there is no 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote:
 
 I thought you had left Catholic philosophy behind Robin. But then you seem to 
 be bent on destroying the oneness of God in your experience. This is 
 needlessly complex, but it is quite intriguing. Hopkins, or a commentator 
 thereupon?
 
 Statements such as 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to 
 choose, and freely choose, according to his will' are not logical, whereas if 
 you wrote it this way, 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to 
 choose, according to His (God's) will' would make more sense.
 
 Perhaps Judy can explain this to me, for I am sure your commentary would pass 
 me by.

http://tinyurl.com/8phkwob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHsDeiV-QAsfeature=related

  . . . there is a scale or range of pitch which is also infinite and 
  terminates upwards in the directness or uprightness of the 'stem' of the 
  godhead and the procession of the divine persons. God then can shift the 
  self that lies in one to a higher, that is/better, pitch of itself; that 
  is/to a pitch or determination of itself on the side of the good. But here 
  arises a darker difficulty still; for how can we tell that each self has, 
  in particular, any such better self, any such range from bad to good? In 
  the abstract there is such a range of pitch and conceivably a self to be 
  found, actually or possibly, at each pitch in it, but how can *each* self 
  have all these pitches? for this seems contrary to its freedom; the more so 
  as if we look at the exhibition of moral freedom in life, at men's lives 
  and history, we find not only that in the same circumstances and seemingly 
  with the same graces they behave differently, not only they do not range as 
  fast from bad to good or good to bad one as another, but, even what is most 
  intrinsic to a man, the influence of his own past and of the preexisting 
  disposition of will with which he comes to action seems irregular and now 
  he does well, now he sins, bids fair to be a sinner and becomes a saint or 
  bids fair to be a saint and falls away, and indeed goes through 
  vicissitudes of all sorts and changes times without number.
 
  This matter is profound; but so far as I see this is the truth. First, 
  though self, as personality, is prior to nature it is not prior to pitch. 
  If there were something prior even to pitch, of which that pitch would be 
  itself the pitch, then we could suppose that that, like everything else, 
  was subject to God's will and could be pitched, could be determined, this 
  way or that. But this is really saying that a thing is and is not itself, 
  is and is not A, is and is not. For self before nature is no thing as yet 
  but only possible; with the accession of a nature it becomes properly a 
  self, for instance a person: only so far as it is prior to nature, that is 
  to say/so far as it is a definite self, the possibility of a definite self 
  (and not merely the possibility of a number or fetch of nature) it is 
  identified with pitch, moral pitch, determination of right and wrong. And 
  so far, it has its possibility, as it will have its existence, from God, 
  but not so that God makes pitch no pitch, determination no determination, 
  and indifference indifference. The indifference, the absence of pitch, is 
  in the nature to be superadded. And when nature is superadded, then it 
  cannot be believed, as the Thomists think, that in every circumstance of 
  free choice the person is of himself indifferent towards the alternatives 
  and that God determines which he shall, though freely, choose. The 
  difficulty does not lie so much in his being determined by God and yet 
  choosing freely, for on one side that may and must happen, but in his being 
  supposed equally disposed or pitched towards both at once. This is 
  impossible and destroys the notion of freedom and of pitch.
 
  Nevertheless in every circumstance it is within God's power to determine 
  the creature to choose, and freely choose, according to his will; but not 
  without a change or access of circumstance, over and above the bare act of 
  determination on his part. This access is either of grace, which is 
  'supernature', to nature or of more grace to grace already given, and it 
  takes the form of instressing the affective will, of affecting the will 
  towards the good which he proposes. So far this is a necessary and 
  constrained affection on the creature's part, to which the *arbitrium* of 
  the creature may give its avowal and consent. Ordinarily when grace is 
  given we feel first the necessary or constrained act and after that the 
  free act on own part, of consent or refusal as the case may be. This 
  consent or refusal is given to an act either hereafter or now to be done, 
  but in the nature of things such an act must always 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote:
 
 I thought you had left Catholic philosophy behind Robin. But then you seem 
 to be bent on destroying the oneness of God in your experience. This is 
 needlessly complex, but it is quite intriguing. Hopkins, or a commentator 
 thereupon?
 
 Statements such as 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to 
 choose, and freely choose, according to his will' are not logical, whereas 
 if you wrote it this way, 'it is within God's power to determine the 
 creature to choose, according to His (God's) will' would make more sense.
 
 Perhaps Judy can explain this to me, for I am sure your commentary would 
 pass me by.
 
 Dear Xeno,
 
 You should rewrite his poems too.

I am afraid that my rewriting poetry would not be in the best interests of the 
poem.

 In order to understand what Hopkins is saying here (you were right about the 
 author; that's good), you need to read my favourite passage of all-time. 
 Where in effect (without explicating it) Hopkins is defining the importance 
 of first-person ontology. But in reading over what you have written here, I 
 found [before I give you that quotation again] a remark germane to all of 
 what divides us in our understanding of and belief about metaphysical 
 ultimates:
 
 For in fulfilling his own individuality, he is a living temple of God, he is 
 another Christ, who is most himself 'when the member is in all things 
 conformed to Christ. This too best brings out the nature of the man himself, 
 as the lettering on a sail or device upon a flag are best seen when it 
 fills.' For the self, that about the individual 'which is more distinctive 
 than the taste of ale or alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnutleaf 
 or camphor' is not annihilated by Christ's presence, but rather brought to 
 its most perfect stress of pitch, to the actualizing of its fullest human 
 potentiality. For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, 
 God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it*.
 
 Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
 Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
 Selves--goes itself; *myself* it speaks and spells,
 Crying *What I do is me: for that I came*.
 
 Do you see, Xeno how antithetical Hopkins's philosophy (and insight) is to 
 the philosophy that is the priori here on FFL?

Of course they appear to be opposed. You have on the one hand a philosophy that 
seeks to erase the division between the individual and the rest of existence, 
which if you like, includes the concept of god. The other seeks to raise the 
individual to the peak of perfection within the rest of existence, while 
acknowledging that division as real. It is just that experientially that 
division is conceptual, and that conception can be transcended. Hopkins, as 
you, does not want to step over that line. That is a no no I suppose for 
Christians. 'I and my Father are one' would be a special reservation, off 
limits as it were.

 And you, evidently, are *embodying* this anti-Hopkins philosophy.

I can see how this applies, I am not against Hopkins; it is simply I have no 
use for it in the sense tha tyou do. It is beautiful the way he expresses 
himself. I have to incorporate that in the whole. If I am anti-Hopkins, the 
words are yours. That characterisation never occurred to me. Shakespeare also 
holds that degree of separation when he is on the edge of dissolving. Referring 
to his poem (Sonnet 107): 'And thou in this shall find thy monument, when 
tyrants crests and tombs of brass are spent.'

While there were some Christian influences in my life, I always had the feeling 
everything was connected in some mysterious way. Trying to get that to happen 
was another matter. If I cross the line, what Hopkins says is not reduced to 
nothing, it becomes a value in the whole. The divisions others might have tried 
to impress on my 'personal ontology' did not turn out to be my working model 
for the universe. I have an individuality; it has not gone away.

The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature, 
God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
quivering stress without absorbing it' seems to not be punctuated clearly. I 
would write 'For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature; 
God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon makes it less 
ambiguous.

Though I hear the word 'god' frequently, I normally do not use it myself. It is 
redundant. That does not mean that my individual ontology has any control of 
the universe, or that I equate the location where experience comes to a 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:
snip
 The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
 of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
 that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
 seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
 self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
 which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
 quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
 makes it less ambiguous.

Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
by a semicolon.

I see no ambiguity or problematic punctuation in the sentence
as written, FWIW.

Here's a sentence with the same structure:

Because she often works late, her husband, who does the
cooking, prepares dishes that she can warm up in the
oven when she gets home.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Well, I guess I will never be an editor.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  The sentence 'For since the self is the individuating existence
  of a nature, God's presence, which is existence itself, can hold
  that self *at its highest quivering stress without absorbing it'
  seems to not be punctuated clearly. I would write 'For since the
  self is the individuating existence of a nature; God's presence,
  which is existence itself, can hold that self *at its highest 
  quivering stress without absorbing it.' I think that semicolon 
  makes it less ambiguous.
 
 Just for the record: A semicolon would make it ungrammatical.
 For since the self is the individuating existence of a nature
 is not a complete sentence and therefore should not be followed
 by a semicolon.
 
 I see no ambiguity or problematic punctuation in the sentence
 as written, FWIW.
 
 Here's a sentence with the same structure:
 
 Because she often works late, her husband, who does the
 cooking, prepares dishes that she can warm up in the
 oven when she gets home.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Your free will, God, and grace: the person in action

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote:

I thought you had left Catholic philosophy behind Robin. But then you seem to 
be bent on destroying the oneness of God in your experience. This is needlessly 
complex, but it is quite intriguing. Hopkins, or a commentator thereupon?

Statements such as 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to 
choose, and freely choose, according to his will' are not logical, whereas if 
you wrote it this way, 'it is within God's power to determine the creature to 
choose, according to His (God's) will' would make more sense.

Perhaps Judy can explain this to me, for I am sure your commentary would pass 
me by.

 . . . there is a scale or range of pitch which is also infinite and 
 terminates upwards in the directness or uprightness of the 'stem' of the 
 godhead and the procession of the divine persons. God then can shift the self 
 that lies in one to a higher, that is/better, pitch of itself; that is/to a 
 pitch or determination of itself on the side of the good. But here arises a 
 darker difficulty still; for how can we tell that each self has, in 
 particular, any such better self, any such range from bad to good? In the 
 abstract there is such a range of pitch and conceivably a self to be found, 
 actually or possibly, at each pitch in it, but how can *each* self have all 
 these pitches? for this seems contrary to its freedom; the more so as if we 
 look at the exhibition of moral freedom in life, at men's lives and history, 
 we find not only that in the same circumstances and seemingly with the same 
 graces they behave differently, not only they do not range as fast from bad 
 to good or good to bad one as another, but, even what is most intrinsic to a 
 man, the influence of his own past and of the preexisting disposition of will 
 with which he comes to action seems irregular and now he does well, now he 
 sins, bids fair to be a sinner and becomes a saint or bids fair to be a saint 
 and falls away, and indeed goes through vicissitudes of all sorts and changes 
 times without number.

 This matter is profound; but so far as I see this is the truth. First, though 
 self, as personality, is prior to nature it is not prior to pitch. If there 
 were something prior even to pitch, of which that pitch would be itself the 
 pitch, then we could suppose that that, like everything else, was subject to 
 God's will and could be pitched, could be determined, this way or that. But 
 this is really saying that a thing is and is not itself, is and is not A, is 
 and is not. For self before nature is no thing as yet but only possible; with 
 the accession of a nature it becomes properly a self, for instance a person: 
 only so far as it is prior to nature, that is to say/so far as it is a 
 definite self, the possibility of a definite self (and not merely the 
 possibility of a number or fetch of nature) it is identified with pitch, 
 moral pitch, determination of right and wrong. And so far, it has its 
 possibility, as it will have its existence, from God, but not so that God 
 makes pitch no pitch, determination no determination, and indifference 
 indifference. The indifference, the absence of pitch, is in the nature to be 
 superadded. And when nature is superadded, then it cannot be believed, as the 
 Thomists think, that in every circumstance of free choice the person is of 
 himself indifferent towards the alternatives and that God determines which he 
 shall, though freely, choose. The difficulty does not lie so much in his 
 being determined by God and yet choosing freely, for on one side that may and 
 must happen, but in his being supposed equally disposed or pitched towards 
 both at once. This is impossible and destroys the notion of freedom and of 
 pitch.

 Nevertheless in every circumstance it is within God's power to determine the 
 creature to choose, and freely choose, according to his will; but not without 
 a change or access of circumstance, over and above the bare act of 
 determination on his part. This access is either of grace, which is 
 'supernature', to nature or of more grace to grace already given, and it 
 takes the form of instressing the affective will, of affecting the will 
 towards the good which he proposes. So far this is a necessary and 
 constrained affection on the creature's part, to which the *arbitrium* of the 
 creature may give its avowal and consent. Ordinarily when grace is given we 
 feel first the necessary or constrained act and after that the free act on 
 own part, of consent or refusal as the case may be. This consent or refusal 
 is given to an act either hereafter or now to be done, but in the nature of 
 things such an act must always be future, even if immediately future or of 
 those futures which arise in acts and phrases like 'I must ask you' to do 
 so-and-so, 'I wish to apologize', 'I beg to say', and so on, And ordinarily 
 the motives for refusal are still present 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happiness is seeing God

[Emily Reyn]

Very funny.  snip Happiness is cleaving to God as the mind's all-fulfilling 
object.  Well, that I understand...but only if I equate God with Nature.   I 
love that I have to look up so many things here.  I think I'll see the movie 
Brideshead Revisited.  I love Emma Thompson.  



From: Robin Carlsen maskedze...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happiness is seeing God





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:

 
 
 Let's take a guess: it's that jolly old medieval saint, Aquinas!

Congratulations you are our winner! You have correctly identified the author of 
the piece.

Your prize is:   1.one gallon Lourdes Water
2. 1943 Missal
3. stone fragment of Monte Cassino
4. signed copy of Brideshead Revisited
5. Original copy of Anselm's Proof for the existence of God
6. Recording of Italian women saying the Rosary before 1943
7. Secret photograph of The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima October 13, 1917
8. St Therese of Lisieux's Joan of Arc costume
9. The Summa Theologica signed by Thomas
10. King Louis IX's sword taken from him by the Saracens

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote:
 
  If anyone asks me I will name the author and the text. It is not lifted 
  from my SCI notes. 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote:
  
   Happiness is another name for God. God is happy by nature; he does not 
   attain happiness or receive it from another. But men become happy by 
   receiving a share in God's happiness, something God creates in them. And 
   this created happiness is a life of human activity in which their human 
   powers are ultimately fulfilled: for the goal of anything is fulfilment 
   in activity.
   
   True, to exist is already to live, but to exist is not yet to be happy, 
   except in God's case. When we speak of leading a life of action or 
   contemplation or pleasure, we mean by life an exercise of our existent 
   powers in some form of fulfilling activity; and this is also the way in 
   which our ultimate goal is said to be eternal life.
   
   Now *this is eternal life: to know you, the only true god*. There are two 
   sorts of activity: one is exercised outside the doer, like cutting down 
   and burning, and realizes and fulfils the thing it is done to rather than 
   the doer; so happiness cannot be that sort of activity. The other sort of 
   activity, like sensing and understanding and willing, is exercised within 
   the doer and fulfils and realizes him; and such activity can be happiness.
   
   God's happiness is God: for him his very existence is an activity by 
   which he is fulfilled from within and not from without; but man's 
   ultimate fulfilment comes by cleaving to God. In our present life we 
   cannot do this by a single continuous activity but only by many 
   interrupted acts; God however has promised us perfect happiness in 
   heaven, and in that happy state man's spirit will be joined to God in one 
   unbroken everlasting activity.
   
   The more we approach such unbroken activity in this life the more we can 
   call ourselves happy, and so a life of action, occupied by many things, 
   offers less happiness than a life of contemplation, engaged in the one 
   activity of gazing at the truth. And if at times a man is not actually so 
   engaged, nevertheless because he is ever open and ready and turns his 
   very breaks in contemplation, due to sleep or natural business, to its 
   service, his contemplation seems as if it were unbroken.
   
   Happiness, because it cleaves to the uncreated good who cannot be seen or 
   touched, is not activity of our senses. But sense-activity, since it is a 
   pre-condition of understanding, is also a pre-condition of whatever 
   partial happiness we can achieve in our present life. In the perfect 
   happiness we hope for in heaven after the resurrection, happiness will 
   redound from our soul into our body and fulfil our bodily senses; so that 
   sense-activity will follow from happiness, even though the activity by 
   which we cleave to God will not require it as a pre-condition.
   
   The activity of happiness is an exercise of understanding, not of 
   willing. For willing a goal is not the same as achieving it: the will can 
   desire absent goals just as much as it can enjoy achieved ones. Something 
   else than an act of will is needed to make the goal present. This is 
   obvious in the case of tangible goals�if money could be got by willing, 
   the needy man would straightway have as much as he wanted�and it is 
   also true of spiritual goals.
   
   From the start the will wants to achieve it; but to be achieved it must 
   become present to us in an act of understanding, after which the will can 
   rest and rejoice in the goal already achieved. 
   
   Happiness, then�*joy in truth

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happiness is seeing God

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:

 
 
 Let's take a guess: it's that jolly old medieval saint, Aquinas!

Congratulations you are our winner! You have correctly identified the author of 
the piece.

Your prize is:   1.one gallon Lourdes Water
   2. 1943 Missal
   3. stone fragment of Monte Cassino
   4. signed copy of Brideshead Revisited
   5. Original copy of Anselm's Proof for the existence of 
God
   6. Recording of Italian women saying the Rosary before 
1943
   7. Secret photograph of The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima 
October 13, 1917
   8. St Therese of Lisieux's Joan of Arc costume
   9. The Summa Theologica signed by Thomas
 10. King Louis IX's sword taken from him by the Saracens




  
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote:
 
  If anyone asks me I will name the author and the text. It is not lifted 
  from my SCI notes. 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote:
  
   Happiness is another name for God. God is happy by nature; he does not 
   attain happiness or receive it from another. But men become happy by 
   receiving a share in God's happiness, something God creates in them. And 
   this created happiness is a life of human activity in which their human 
   powers are ultimately fulfilled: for the goal of anything is fulfilment 
   in activity.
   
   True, to exist is already to live, but to exist is not yet to be happy, 
   except in God's case. When we speak of leading a life of action or 
   contemplation or pleasure, we mean by life an exercise of our existent 
   powers in some form of fulfilling activity; and this is also the way in 
   which our ultimate goal is said to be eternal life.
   
   Now *this is eternal life: to know you, the only true god*. There are two 
   sorts of activity: one is exercised outside the doer, like cutting down 
   and burning, and realizes and fulfils the thing it is done to rather than 
   the doer; so happiness cannot be that sort of activity. The other sort of 
   activity, like sensing and understanding and willing, is exercised within 
   the doer and fulfils and realizes him; and such activity can be happiness.
   
   God's happiness is God: for him his very existence is an activity by 
   which he is fulfilled from within and not from without; but man's 
   ultimate fulfilment comes by cleaving to God. In our present life we 
   cannot do this by a single continuous activity but only by many 
   interrupted acts; God however has promised us perfect happiness in 
   heaven, and in that happy state man's spirit will be joined to God in one 
   unbroken everlasting activity.
   
   The more we approach such unbroken activity in this life the more we can 
   call ourselves happy, and so a life of action, occupied by many things, 
   offers less happiness than a life of contemplation, engaged in the one 
   activity of gazing at the truth. And if at times a man is not actually so 
   engaged, nevertheless because he is ever open and ready and turns his 
   very breaks in contemplation, due to sleep or natural business, to its 
   service, his contemplation seems as if it were unbroken.
   
   Happiness, because it cleaves to the uncreated good who cannot be seen or 
   touched, is not activity of our senses. But sense-activity, since it is a 
   pre-condition of understanding, is also a pre-condition of whatever 
   partial happiness we can achieve in our present life. In the perfect 
   happiness we hope for in heaven after the resurrection, happiness will 
   redound from our soul into our body and fulfil our bodily senses; so that 
   sense-activity will follow from happiness, even though the activity by 
   which we cleave to God will not require it as a pre-condition.
   
   The activity of happiness is an exercise of understanding, not of 
   willing. For willing a goal is not the same as achieving it: the will can 
   desire absent goals just as much as it can enjoy achieved ones. Something 
   else than an act of will is needed to make the goal present. This is 
   obvious in the case of tangible goals�if money could be got by willing, 
   the needy man would straightway have as much as he wanted�and it is 
   also true of spiritual goals.
   
   From the start the will wants to achieve it; but to be achieved it must 
   become present to us in an act of understanding, after which the will can 
   rest and rejoice in the goal already achieved. 
   
   Happiness, then�*joy in truth*, as Augustine calls it�is essentially 
   an activity of our understanding, with consequent joy of will. Put 
   another way, willing is not the primary thing we will, just as seeing is 
   not the primary thing we see but has its 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happiness is seeing God

[awoelflebater]

I didn't win but I would love a signed copy of Brideshead Revisited.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  
  
  Let's take a guess: it's that jolly old medieval saint, Aquinas!
 
 Congratulations you are our winner! You have correctly identified the author 
 of the piece.
 
 Your prize is:   1.one gallon Lourdes Water
2. 1943 Missal
3. stone fragment of Monte Cassino
4. signed copy of Brideshead Revisited
5. Original copy of Anselm's Proof for the existence 
 of God
  6. Recording of Italian women saying the Rosary before 
 1943
7. Secret photograph of The Miracle of the Sun at 
 Fatima October 13, 1917
8. St Therese of Lisieux's Joan of Arc costume
9. The Summa Theologica signed by Thomas
  10. King Louis IX's sword taken from him by the Saracens
 
 
 
 
   
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote:
  
   If anyone asks me I will name the author and the text. It is not lifted 
   from my SCI notes. 
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ 
   wrote:
   
Happiness is another name for God. God is happy by nature; he does not 
attain happiness or receive it from another. But men become happy by 
receiving a share in God's happiness, something God creates in them. 
And this created happiness is a life of human activity in which their 
human powers are ultimately fulfilled: for the goal of anything is 
fulfilment in activity.

True, to exist is already to live, but to exist is not yet to be happy, 
except in God's case. When we speak of leading a life of action or 
contemplation or pleasure, we mean by life an exercise of our existent 
powers in some form of fulfilling activity; and this is also the way in 
which our ultimate goal is said to be eternal life.

Now *this is eternal life: to know you, the only true god*. There are 
two sorts of activity: one is exercised outside the doer, like cutting 
down and burning, and realizes and fulfils the thing it is done to 
rather than the doer; so happiness cannot be that sort of activity. The 
other sort of activity, like sensing and understanding and willing, is 
exercised within the doer and fulfils and realizes him; and such 
activity can be happiness.

God's happiness is God: for him his very existence is an activity by 
which he is fulfilled from within and not from without; but man's 
ultimate fulfilment comes by cleaving to God. In our present life we 
cannot do this by a single continuous activity but only by many 
interrupted acts; God however has promised us perfect happiness in 
heaven, and in that happy state man's spirit will be joined to God in 
one unbroken everlasting activity.

The more we approach such unbroken activity in this life the more we 
can call ourselves happy, and so a life of action, occupied by many 
things, offers less happiness than a life of contemplation, engaged in 
the one activity of gazing at the truth. And if at times a man is not 
actually so engaged, nevertheless because he is ever open and ready and 
turns his very breaks in contemplation, due to sleep or natural 
business, to its service, his contemplation seems as if it were 
unbroken.

Happiness, because it cleaves to the uncreated good who cannot be seen 
or touched, is not activity of our senses. But sense-activity, since it 
is a pre-condition of understanding, is also a pre-condition of 
whatever partial happiness we can achieve in our present life. In the 
perfect happiness we hope for in heaven after the resurrection, 
happiness will redound from our soul into our body and fulfil our 
bodily senses; so that sense-activity will follow from happiness, even 
though the activity by which we cleave to God will not require it as a 
pre-condition.

The activity of happiness is an exercise of understanding, not of 
willing. For willing a goal is not the same as achieving it: the will 
can desire absent goals just as much as it can enjoy achieved ones. 
Something else than an act of will is needed to make the goal present. 
This is obvious in the case of tangible goals�if money could be got 
by willing, the needy man would straightway have as much as he 
wanted�and it is also true of spiritual goals.

From the start the will wants to achieve it; but to be achieved it must 
become present to us in an act of understanding, after which the will 
can rest and rejoice in the goal already achieved. 

Happiness, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: If you were God, who would you rather have a beer with?

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 [ Those of you who already are God, please excuse my 
 use of the hypothetical in posing this question. ]
 
 Would You rather sit down over a cold brew with a guy 
 or gal who could look at You and Your Creation and 
 laugh at it all, or someone who felt compelled to 
 Take It All Seriously? 
 
 My kinda God would want to hang with the laughers.
 
 It has always seemed absurd to suppose that a god 
 would choose for his companions, during all eternity, 
 the dear souls whose highest and only ambition is 
 to obey.
 - Robert Green Ingersoll

After you wake up from a dream, you laugh, but when you're IN the dream it's a 
serious matter. So it all depends on your perspective, Life is a waking 
dream, Charlie Lutes.

[FairfieldLife] Re: If you were God, who would you rather have a beer with?

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 [ Those of you who already are God, please excuse my 
 use of the hypothetical in posing this question. ]
 
 Would You rather sit down over a cold brew with a guy 
 or gal who could look at You and Your Creation and 
 laugh at it all, or someone who felt compelled to 
 Take It All Seriously? 
 
 My kinda God would want to hang with the laughers.
 
 It has always seemed absurd to suppose that a god 
 would choose for his companions, during all eternity, 
 the dear souls whose highest and only ambition is 
 to obey.
 - Robert Green Ingersoll

If I were god, not only would I own all the beer, all those drinking would be 
at my disposition regardless of what they think. I would have my beer, and 
drink it all too, via these surrogates. As for the drinkers, having given them 
a short life span, I have arranged for replacements from time to time; eternity 
is for me alone, not thee. I think I would start with the MUM keg party in the 
ladies dome, all invited.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology

[Ravi Yogi]

Dear Robin,

OK fine, if there was anyone who could have stopped The Mad Yogi Inc it would 
have had to be either you, Bob or Judy. All of you are strangely silent or 
conniving, in cahoots with this outrageous, provocative and queasy 
organization. If at all history has to look back, today would be the day that 
marked as the beginning of the betrayal.

Having said that you know very well I'm the needy, narcissistic lover that 
loves to entertain the beloved and demands attention from her.

So I totally loved the attention. I will periodically attack or provoke you and 
I expect similar attention from you. You are free to copy and paste that first 
paragraph of yours, though I would love something fresh even if it's a 
rearrangement of those words.

The part about Osho completely went over from my head, did you miss a link or 
something?

Love - Ravi


On Nov 16, 2011, at 10:36 PM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 
 
 Re: [FairfieldLife] For you Robin - God can only be experienced as 
 first-person ontology
 
 Dear Ravi,
 
 You are so different from me, from all the rest of the persons who post here 
 at FFL, that I hesitate to go beyond what I have already said to you in that 
 personal analysis. Because there I simply tracked my experience of you. What 
 makes you (to repeat myself) stand apart not just from everyone here, but 
 every person I have known in my life is this capacity to not be wounded in 
 your self-consciousness, this capacity to always transcend any neurotic 
 potentiality, this capacity to live outside of all conditioning, this 
 capacity to make reality whatever you choose to make it—without ever, it 
 seems, becoming hostage to that reality, or a victim of reality's judgment of 
 you; this capacity to assault creatively what you, in your freedom, perceive 
 to be constricted, hidebound behaviour in others; this capacity to live 
 outside of time and space and human tragedy; this capacity to create the 
 universe you wish to create; this capacity to always be accountable only to 
 your own consciousness and sense of play; your capacity to always be purely 
 spontaneous; your capacity to not be hurt by the reactions of other people; 
 your capacity to strike at the weakness of others where that weakness issues 
 in some negative compensation; your capacity to provoke but to let go in an 
 instant, never making of this a compulsion; your capacity to always stay 
 moving and in flight, never getting stationary or immobilized by your own 
 subjectivity; your capacity to insult with an impersonal purpose; your 
 capacity to create and live totally inside your own context; your capacity to 
 make conscience something which you can take or leave as you see fit; your 
 capacity to blaspheme in the evident holiness of your own outrageousness; 
 your capacity to like what you like without even sensitizing yourself to the 
 likes of others—much less be influenced by these other likes; your capacity 
 to know truth but never to feel constrained to be obedient to truth; your 
 capacity to make of life a perpetual act of provocation and love; your 
 capacity to torment and tease always from a point of view which takes 
 advantage of your momentary egolessness; your capacity to not be a victim of 
 the fact that you did not create yourself; your capacity to seemingly ignore 
 the prospect of death—except of course to celebrate this opportunity to 
 entertain the powers which will conduct you to your next world; your capacity 
 to take all of what I say here lightly; your capacity to read the motives of 
 others; your capacity to enjoy the fluctuations of your moods; your capacity 
 to take what I have just said to you what you will—never being determined by 
 some consideration of your own vanity.
 
 Pretty interesting, all this, I would say. Now Ravi, I am going to do 
 something I would never think of doing, given my knowledge of you. But in 
 knowing your contempt for certain ideas that I like, for example, 
 omnisubjectivity, I thought to take advantage of the perfect irony 
 understanding between us, and do a point counterpoint with you. You have 
 included in your post the ideas of Osho. I find him unbearably goofy; and yet 
 I sense in you a strong sensation of recognition that somehow he represents 
 your own truth to you. This is quite incredible to me. Because, knowing what 
 a sharp fellow you are—way more than sharp—I would have thought you would 
 experience something of what I experience whenever I watch Osho speak, or 
 read what he has said. But I have read what you posted of his, and to 
 reciprocate, I am going to send you a letter that Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote 
 when he was just 21 years old while finishing with a double first at Oxford. 
 I suspect, but for very different reasons, you will hate what he writes. But 
 since you have trusted me with what you have committed yourself to as being 
 consonant with your own beliefs about reality, I am going to post

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxfPIe2qqxwfeature=related

Ravi,

Apologies if I have neglected my duties as your biggest fan; I felt I was 
staying in touch and expressing my appreciation, for your fully realized 
showmanship, with my links, which, I agree, can sometimes be far left field, at 
best; but then anarchy is like that, and one of the many reasons I wait to read 
and reread every word you post is that I know you are the true anarchist (if 
not anti-Christ) of conscious entertainment whose only goal to show how naked 
the pompous ass of the emperor can truly be. As you may know; the music at the 
following link was written a few blocks from where you're living.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJY8jJkDoMYfeature=related

I've always thought of you and Robin as somewhere between born again Narcissus 
and Goldmund's and Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.


http://www.enotes.com/narcissus-goldmund-salem/narcissus-goldmund


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck6vqsOt-Pc


Please keep throwing those books, you've been even hotter than usual this week






From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:43:21 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as 
first-person ontology



Dear Robin,

OK fine, if there was anyone who could have stopped The Mad Yogi Inc it would 
have had to be either you, Bob or Judy. All of you are strangely silent or 
conniving, in cahoots with this outrageous, provocative and queasy 
organization. If at all history has to look back, today would be the day that 
marked as the beginning of the betrayal.

Having said that you know very well I'm the needy, narcissistic lover that 
loves to entertain the beloved and demands attention from her.

So I totally loved the attention. I will periodically attack or provoke you and 
I expect similar attention from you. You are free to copy and paste that first 
paragraph of yours, though I would love something fresh even if it's a 
rearrangement of those words.

The part about Osho completely went over from my head, did you miss a link or 
something?

Love - Ravi



On Nov 16, 2011, at 10:36 PM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:





Re: [FairfieldLife] For you Robin - God can only be experienced as 
first-person ontology

Dear Ravi,

You are so different from me, from all the rest of the persons who post here 
at FFL, that I hesitate to go beyond what I have already said to you in that 
personal analysis. Because there I simply tracked my experience of you. What 
makes you (to repeat myself) stand apart not just from everyone here, but 
every person I have known in my life is this capacity to not be wounded in 
your self-consciousness, this capacity to always transcend any neurotic 
potentiality, this capacity to live outside of all conditioning, this capacity 
to make reality whatever you choose to make it—without ever, it seems, 
becoming hostage to that reality, or a victim of reality's judgment of you; 
this capacity to assault creatively what you, in your freedom, perceive to be 
constricted, hidebound behaviour in others; this capacity to live outside of 
time and space and human tragedy; this capacity to create the universe you 
wish to create; this capacity to always be accountable
only to your own consciousness and sense of play; your capacity to always be 
purely spontaneous; your capacity to not be hurt by the reactions of other 
people; your capacity to strike at the weakness of others where that weakness 
issues in some negative compensation; your capacity to provoke but to let go in 
an instant, never making of this a compulsion; your capacity to always stay 
moving and in flight, never getting stationary or immobilized by your own 
subjectivity; your capacity to insult with an impersonal purpose; your capacity 
to create and live totally inside your own context; your capacity to make 
conscience something which you can take or leave as you see fit; your capacity 
to blaspheme in the evident holiness of your own outrageousness; your capacity 
to like what you like without even sensitizing yourself to the likes of 
others—much less be influenced by these other likes; your capacity to know 
truth but never to feel constrained to be
obedient to truth; your capacity to make of life a perpetual act of provocation 
and love; your capacity to torment and tease always from a point of view which 
takes advantage of your momentary egolessness; your capacity to not be a victim 
of the fact that you did not create yourself; your capacity to seemingly ignore 
the prospect of death—except of course to celebrate this opportunity to 
entertain the powers which will conduct you to your next world; your capacity 
to take all of what I say here lightly; your capacity to read the motives of 
others; your capacity to enjoy the fluctuations of your moods; your capacity to 
take what I

[FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology

[maskedzebra]

Re: [FairfieldLife] For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person 
ontology

Dear Ravi,

You are so different from me, from all the rest of the persons who post here at 
FFL, that I hesitate to go beyond what I have already said to you in that 
personal analysis. Because there I simply tracked my experience of you. What 
makes you (to repeat myself) stand apart not just from everyone here, but every 
person I have known in my life is this capacity to not be wounded in your 
self-consciousness, this capacity to always transcend any neurotic 
potentiality, this capacity to live outside of all conditioning, this capacity 
to make reality whatever you choose to make it—without ever, it seems, becoming 
hostage to that reality, or a victim of reality's judgment of you; this 
capacity to assault creatively what you, in your freedom, perceive to be 
constricted, hidebound behaviour in others; this capacity to live outside of 
time and space and human tragedy; this capacity to create the universe you wish 
to create; this capacity to always be accountable only to your own 
consciousness and sense of play; your capacity to always be purely spontaneous; 
your capacity to not be hurt by the reactions of other people; your capacity to 
strike at the weakness of others where that weakness issues in some negative 
compensation; your capacity to provoke but to let go in an instant, never 
making of this a compulsion; your capacity to always stay moving and in flight, 
never getting stationary or immobilized by your own subjectivity; your capacity 
to insult with an impersonal purpose; your capacity to create and live totally 
inside your own context; your capacity to make conscience something which you 
can take or leave as you see fit; your capacity to blaspheme in the evident 
holiness of your own outrageousness; your capacity to like what you like 
without even sensitizing yourself to the likes of others—much less be 
influenced by these other likes; your capacity to know truth but never to feel 
constrained to be obedient to truth; your capacity to make of life a perpetual 
act of provocation and love; your capacity to torment and tease always from a 
point of view which takes advantage of your momentary egolessness; your 
capacity to not be a victim of the fact that you did not create yourself; your 
capacity to seemingly ignore the prospect of death—except of course to 
celebrate this opportunity to entertain the powers which will conduct you to 
your next world; your capacity to take all of what I say here lightly; your 
capacity to read the motives of others; your capacity to enjoy the fluctuations 
of your moods; your capacity to take what I have just said to you what you 
will—never being determined by some consideration of your own vanity.

Pretty interesting, all this, I would say. Now Ravi, I am going to do something 
I would never think of doing, given my knowledge of you. But in knowing your 
contempt for certain ideas that I like, for example, omnisubjectivity, I 
thought to take advantage of the perfect irony understanding between us, and do 
a point counterpoint with you. You have included in your post the ideas of 
Osho. I find him unbearably goofy; and yet I sense in you a strong sensation of 
recognition that somehow he represents your own truth to you. This is quite 
incredible to me. Because, knowing what a sharp fellow you are—way more than 
sharp—I would have thought you would experience something of what I experience 
whenever I watch Osho speak, or read what he has said. But I have read what you 
posted of his, and to reciprocate, I am going to send you a letter that Gerard 
Manley Hopkins wrote when he was just 21 years old while finishing with a 
double first at Oxford. I suspect, but for very different reasons, you will 
hate what he writes. But since you have trusted me with what you have committed 
yourself to as being consonant with your own beliefs about reality, I am going 
to post this letter from Hopkins, a letter which, when I first read it, 
produced the awareness of a kind of perfect truth—in this sense: Hopkins was 
making contact with [this was before his conversion to Catholicism] an 
extraordinary reality, the kind of contact out of which he would compose his 
beautiful poems in honour of his Master. You will laugh and mock and dismiss 
almost everything he says; but I have already done the same with Osho. So, no 
matter. This letter represents faithfully the way I go about determining the 
value and significance of something; which is to say that Hopkins is able to 
use his first person ontology in order to apprehend something very real—but 
something which would escape the notice and experience of almost everyone else 
in the world.

Here is that letter—or rather the main substance of the letter, a letter I deem 
about as unanswerable as any letter I have read—although as I say that, you, 
Ravi, will have no compunction about condemning it as pure bunk

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person ontology

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj9t94fuUTg



From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:36:55 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: For you Robin - God can only be experienced as 
first-person ontology





Re: [FairfieldLife] For you Robin - God can only be experienced as first-person 
ontology

Dear Ravi,

You are so different from me, from all the rest of the persons who post here at 
FFL, that I hesitate to go beyond what I have already said to you in that 
personal analysis. Because there I simply tracked my experience of you. What 
makes you (to repeat myself) stand apart not just from everyone here, but every 
person I have known in my life is this capacity to not be wounded in your 
self-consciousness, this capacity to always transcend any neurotic 
potentiality, this capacity to live outside of all conditioning, this capacity 
to make reality whatever you choose to make it—without ever, it seems, becoming 
hostage to that reality, or a victim of reality's judgment of you; this 
capacity to assault creatively what you, in your freedom, perceive to be 
constricted, hidebound behaviour in others; this capacity to live outside of 
time and space and human tragedy; this capacity to create the universe you wish 
to create; this capacity to always be accountable
 only to your own consciousness and sense of play; your capacity to always be 
purely spontaneous; your capacity to not be hurt by the reactions of other 
people; your capacity to strike at the weakness of others where that weakness 
issues in some negative compensation; your capacity to provoke but to let go in 
an instant, never making of this a compulsion; your capacity to always stay 
moving and in flight, never getting stationary or immobilized by your own 
subjectivity; your capacity to insult with an impersonal purpose; your capacity 
to create and live totally inside your own context; your capacity to make 
conscience something which you can take or leave as you see fit; your capacity 
to blaspheme in the evident holiness of your own outrageousness; your capacity 
to like what you like without even sensitizing yourself to the likes of 
others—much less be influenced by these other likes; your capacity to know 
truth but never to feel constrained to be
 obedient to truth; your capacity to make of life a perpetual act of 
provocation and love; your capacity to torment and tease always from a point of 
view which takes advantage of your momentary egolessness; your capacity to not 
be a victim of the fact that you did not create yourself; your capacity to 
seemingly ignore the prospect of death—except of course to celebrate this 
opportunity to entertain the powers which will conduct you to your next world; 
your capacity to take all of what I say here lightly; your capacity to read the 
motives of others; your capacity to enjoy the fluctuations of your moods; your 
capacity to take what I have just said to you what you will—never being 
determined by some consideration of your own vanity.

Pretty interesting, all this, I would say. Now Ravi, I am going to do something 
I would never think of doing, given my knowledge of you. But in knowing your 
contempt for certain ideas that I like, for example, omnisubjectivity, I 
thought to take advantage of the perfect irony understanding between us, and do 
a point counterpoint with you. You have included in your post the ideas of 
Osho. I find him unbearably goofy; and yet I sense in you a strong sensation of 
recognition that somehow he represents your own truth to you. This is quite 
incredible to me. Because, knowing what a sharp fellow you are—way more than 
sharp—I would have thought you would experience something of what I experience 
whenever I watch Osho speak, or read what he has said. But I have read what you 
posted of his, and to reciprocate, I am going to send you a letter that Gerard 
Manley Hopkins wrote when he was just 21 years old while finishing with a 
double first at Oxford. I suspect,
 but for very different reasons, you will hate what he writes. But since you 
have trusted me with what you have committed yourself to as being consonant 
with your own beliefs about reality, I am going to post this letter from 
Hopkins, a letter which, when I first read it, produced the awareness of a kind 
of perfect truth—in this sense: Hopkins was making contact with [this was 
before his conversion to Catholicism] an extraordinary reality, the kind of 
contact out of which he would compose his beautiful poems in honour of his 
Master. You will laugh and mock and dismiss almost everything he says; but I 
have already done the same with Osho. So, no matter. This letter represents 
faithfully the way I go about determining the value and significance of 
something; which is to say that Hopkins is able to use his first person 
ontology in order to apprehend something very real—but something which

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[richardjwilliamstexas]

I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as
from this particular poster, it is as if he can only
see black and white or is so jaded in his way of
thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible.
   
   Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of
   you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented,
   disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human
   interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can
   just continue his copy and paste from various liberal
   websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical 
   manner.
  
  Watch 'em dance, folks.
 
authfriend:
 Well, I'll chime in here and back up BillyG and Ravi,
 because the do.rk can't accuse me of finding his
 behavior inappropriate on account of my politics; 
 I'm at least as liberal as he is.
 
It's always wrong to be prejudiced against certain groups 
of people, like Jews, Christians, Texans, and the
Mormons. Where I come from, silence usually indicates 
agreement. So, it looks like to me that there's only one
or two informants on FFL willing to stand up for what's 
right. 

Subject: Fringe Christian Right endorses Texas Gov Rick 
Perry for president
Author: John Manning
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon, alt.religion, 
soc.culture.jewish, alt.atheism, alt.bible.prophecy
Date: July 5, 2011 
http://tinyurl.com/3c4ubh4

 Nobody minds the occasional cut-and-paste if it's
 well chosen and the poster is willing to discuss it.

 But the indiscriminate dumping that the do.rk has
 been doing here for months, without any commentary
 of his own, his only response to disagreement from
 others being what he perceives to be withering
 insults like the above, are an abuse of the forum.

Well, let's see, Judy, I've been saying this for what, 
a decade? You supported this character for over seven 
years on Usenet! And, you've lobbed your share of hate
mail at the two or three conservatives on this forum!

 And it makes liberals look bad just on general
 principles; people are more likely to resist liberal
 ideas when they're relentlessly shoved in their
 faces with no discussion possible.
 
 One of his arrogant little tricks is to pick out
 what he thinks are important fragments of the
 articles he posts and put them at the top so we'll
 be sure not to miss them. That's annoying and
 insulting. We don't need him to instruct us in 
 what's significant about an article. We'll decide
 for ourselves, thank you very much, if we want to
 read the article at all. And if we aren't going to
 read the whole thing, we're not going to accept
 his choice of callouts as a summary.
 
 His snotty comment above is reminiscent of Barry's
 oft-repeated self-serving trope that the only reason
 people criticize his behavior is because they don't
 agreee with his criticisms of TM. That's utter
 hogwash, but apparently the do.rk thinks it's a
 stinging rebuke worthy of emulation.
 
And the incessant posting of websites that 
support his particular viewpoint is simplistic 
and a poor substitute for his own comments on
   the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might 
be wrong?
   
At least Judy will engage.
   
Except with that Willytex that lives down in Texas!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[Mike Dixon]

Oh Ravi, let's not name call. Acid.Reflux is just a lovable retired postal 
worker who's pension goes a little further in Brazil.  I look on his rants as a 
form of primal scream therapy, just lettin' it all hang out for the world to 
see.However, he does seem to be emotionally invested in his political point of 
view and he's in for a big let down next year.





From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 1:35:53 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote:
 
 I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular 
poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way 
of 
thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible.
  

Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him 
because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge 
in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just 
continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, 
monotonous and mechanical manner.


 And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint 
 is 
simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, 
what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong?
 
 At least Judy will engage.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[Ravi Yogi]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote:

 I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this
particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so
jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer
possible.

Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond
to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he
has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in
peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal
websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner.

 And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular
viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on
the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong?

 At least Judy will engage.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@ wrote:
 
  I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this
 particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so
 jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer
 possible.
 



 Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond
 to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he
 has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in
 peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal
 websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner.
 


Watch 'em dance, folks.



  And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular
 viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on
 the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong?
 
  At least Judy will engage.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@ wrote:
  
   I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as
   from this particular poster, it is as if he can only
   see black and white or is so jaded in his way of
   thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible.
 
  Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of
  you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented,
  disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human
  interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can
  just continue his copy and paste from various liberal
  websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner.
 
 Watch 'em dance, folks.

Well, I'll chime in here and back up BillyG and Ravi,
because the do.rk can't accuse me of finding his
behavior inappropriate on account of my politics; I'm
at least as liberal as he is.

Nobody minds the occasional cut-and-paste if it's
well chosen and the poster is willing to discuss it.
But the indiscriminate dumping that the do.rk has
been doing here for months, without any commentary
of his own, his only response to disagreement from
others being what he perceives to be withering
insults like the above, are an abuse of the forum.
And it makes liberals look bad just on general
principles; people are more likely to resist liberal
ideas when they're relentlessly shoved in their
faces with no discussion possible.

One of his arrogant little tricks is to pick out
what he thinks are important fragments of the
articles he posts and put them at the top so we'll
be sure not to miss them. That's annoying and
insulting. We don't need him to instruct us in 
what's significant about an article. We'll decide
for ourselves, thank you very much, if we want to
read the article at all. And if we aren't going to
read the whole thing, we're not going to accept
his choice of callouts as a summary.

His snotty comment above is reminiscent of Barry's
oft-repeated self-serving trope that the only reason
people criticize his behavior is because they don't
agreee with his criticisms of TM. That's utter
hogwash, but apparently the do.rk thinks it's a
stinging rebuke worthy of emulation.




 
   And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular
  viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on
  the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong?
  
   At least Judy will engage.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[richardjwilliamstexas]

do.rflex:
 Why does God hate Texas?
 
So, it seems that you hate a lot of different groups 
of people, for no apparent reason. 

Prejudice against certain group is always wrong, John. 

You've been taken to task for this on several 
occasions. You seem to be trying to outdo yourself. 
Don't you just hate those Mormons?

The outright prejudice of some of you TM Teachers is 
just astounding! What a hateful bunch of spiritual
impostors. Even Sal would probably agree with this
assessment!

This must be the bash-a-group week on FFL. Go figure. 

2006–2008 American Community Survey, the racial and 
ethnic composition of Texas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote:

 It is prophesied that a leader shall come out of the desert where the fire 
 and 
 heat shall temper his power! Can I get an Amen on that!
 


Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and 
you're going to burn in hell.  The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy 
thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love. 
~~  Butch Hancock 




 
 
 
 
 From: do.rflex do.rflex@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 1:07:11 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
 
   
 
 
 God's Answer to Rick Perry's Prayers for Rain: Go to Hell
 
 By Blue Texan - Friday July 1, 2011
 
 -- On April 21, The Secessionist, who last year sued the EPA so
 Texas could dump even more carbon into the atmosphere (which
 totally doesn't cause global warming), used his elected office to
 ask thepeople of his state to pray that God might end our worst
 drought in over 100 years.
 
 This is what the drought conditions were that week.
 
 See Graph: 
 http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2011/07/Screen-shot-2011-07-01-at-9.08.58-AM-300x176.png
 
 
 And this is what they are this week:
 
 See 2nd Graph: http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/DM_state.htm?TX,S
 
 Why does God hate Texas?
 
 http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/01/gods-answer-to-rick-perrys-prayers-for-rain-go-to-hell/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@... 
wrote:

 
 
 do.rflex:
  Why does God hate Texas?
  
 So, it seems that you hate a lot of different groups 
 of people, for no apparent reason. 
 
 Prejudice against certain group is always wrong, John. 
 
 You've been taken to task for this on several 
 occasions. You seem to be trying to outdo yourself. 
 Don't you just hate those Mormons?
 
 The outright prejudice of some of you TM Teachers is 
 just astounding! What a hateful bunch of spiritual
 impostors. Even Sal would probably agree with this
 assessment!
 
 This must be the bash-a-group week on FFL. Go figure. 
 
 2006–2008 American Community Survey, the racial and 
 ethnic composition of Texas:
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular 
poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way 
of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible.

And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is 
simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, 
what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong?

At least Judy will engage.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote:

 It is prophesied that a leader shall come out of the desert where the fire 
 and 
 heat shall temper his power! Can I get an Amen on that!
 



Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and 
you're going to burn in hell.  The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy 
thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.

~~  Butch Hancock 



 
 
 
 
 From: do.rflex do.rflex@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 1:07:11 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
 
   
 
 
 God's Answer to Rick Perry's Prayers for Rain: Go to Hell
 
 By Blue Texan - Friday July 1, 2011
 
 -- On April 21, The Secessionist, who last year sued the EPA so
 Texas could dump even more carbon into the atmosphere (which
 totally doesn't cause global warming), used his elected office to
 ask thepeople of his state to pray that God might end our worst
 drought in over 100 years.
 
 This is what the drought conditions were that week.
 
 See Graph: 
 http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2011/07/Screen-shot-2011-07-01-at-9.08.58-AM-300x176.png
 
 
 And this is what they are this week:
 
 See 2nd Graph: http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/DM_state.htm?TX,S
 
 Why does God hate Texas?
 
 http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/01/gods-answer-to-rick-perrys-prayers-for-rain-go-to-hell/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@ 
 wrote:
 
  
  
  do.rflex:
   Why does God hate Texas?
   
  So, it seems that you hate a lot of different groups 
  of people, for no apparent reason. 
  
  Prejudice against certain group is always wrong, John. 
  
  You've been taken to task for this on several 
  occasions. You seem to be trying to outdo yourself. 
  Don't you just hate those Mormons?
  
  The outright prejudice of some of you TM Teachers is 
  just astounding! What a hateful bunch of spiritual
  impostors. Even Sal would probably agree with this
  assessment!
  
  This must be the bash-a-group week on FFL. Go figure. 
  
  2006–2008 American Community Survey, the racial and 
  ethnic composition of Texas:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
 
 I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular 
 poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way 
 of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible.
 



Projection is a fascinating response to having one's particular nerves hit on 
target.



 And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint 
 is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, 
 what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong?
 
 At least Judy will engage.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the 
 Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna 
 is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the 
 evidence? The Guru below appears to be more liberal than the Fundie 
 Bhakti's since he's saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the 
 impersonal Absolute in terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even 
 Ramana Maharshi was a devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali.
 ...
 However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form 
 of  Godhead Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that 
 Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no 
 evidence that one or the other of these gods is the Supreme Personality of 
 Godhead.
 ...
 The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare 
 Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman 
 Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it.
 ...
 Either there is a Supreme Personality of the Godhead or there is not. But 
 should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such 
 as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male gods: Krishna, YHVH, 
 Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than 
 Soma.


Rick Archer even interviewed Igal Harmelin, why not another nobody ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Ravi Yogi]

Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare Krishnas 
are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely make you 
Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with links from Google 
images.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
 state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as 
 long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's 
 doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
 ...
 The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, 
 and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message 
 obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. 
 non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the 
 whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine 
 the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite 
 Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this 
 world-view Advaitayana Buddhism.
 ...
 Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that 
 calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney 
 attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's
 ...
 And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form
 
 That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, 
 Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this deceiver is 
 a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly 
 the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with 
 white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just 
 the same old critter but differing stripes).
 ...
 OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a 
 Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH.  Apart 
 from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence 
 that Krishna is Bhagavan?
 ...
 In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme 
 Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more.
 ...
 Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute. Duuuhhheverything is 
 the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute above the 
 Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not 
 more Absolute than dog crap. Dog = God backwards, same stuff.
 ...
 Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this is pure 
 Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying Supreme 
 Personality of Godhead.  Everything is Absolute with form, if it has form. 
  But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN.
 ...
 Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is faith-based 
 on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's Personal Form 
 (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the 
 Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you
 ...
 See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God, replacing 
 that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of 
 Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally faith-based, 
 totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God 
 above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form.
 ...
 Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental 
 Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any 
 Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal form. Even 
 Hitler. So go figure.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
  
   Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - 
   the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims 
   Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, 
   what's the evidence? 
  
  
  You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He 
  didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. 
  
  This is what he said:
  
  Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the Absolute 
  personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague 
  answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers 
  against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. 
  
  And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the 
  two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy 
  scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this 
  principle. And I'll share with you a little piece 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[seventhray1]

Is your real name Matlock?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis.
They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are
legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a
look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare
Krishna Guru.
 ...
 The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal
Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of
Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting
the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins,
Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and
Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various
separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite
Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called
this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism.
 ...
 Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single
statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the
Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping
Krishna: It's
 ...
 And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form

 That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words.
First, Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this
deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare
Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and
this Guru is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no
offense to black or white...just the same old critter but differing
stripes).
 ...
 OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there
were a Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say)
YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's
the evidence that Krishna is Bhagavan?
 ...
 In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme
Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more.
 ...
 Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute.
Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There
is no Absolute above the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its
Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not more Absolute than dog crap.
Dog = God backwards, same stuff.
 ...
 Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this
is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying
Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everything is Absolute with form, if
it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna
is THE MAN.
 ...
 Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is
faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's
Personal Form (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow
superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom
Cruise,...where are you
 ...
 See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God,
replacing that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's
usage of Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally
faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is
THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in
Personal form.
 ...
 Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the
Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total
rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal
form. Even Hitler. So go figure.


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
  
   Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various
stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow
below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence?
 
 
  You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the
post. He didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of
Godhead.
 
  This is what he said:
 
  Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the
Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would
get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting,
combating answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really
looking to understand.
 
  And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis
of the two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads,
the holy scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach
this principle. And I'll share with you a little piece of it.
 
  There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit
then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call
God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth.
 
  And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally,
simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

Your obvious anger and open hostility toward Bhaktis tell much more than 
anything else about your point of view here, Yifu.

It isn't only the Hare Krishnas [whom you apparently despise] that look to 
'enlightenment' in terms of a personal relationship with God. Guru Dev's 
discourses are filled with recommendations to follow Bhagwan and to worship 
Paramatma, all according to the Veda Shastras. The following are only two of 
the dozens of examples he offers:

--- Attainment of Bhagwan's World [from Guru Dev]---

With the support of nishkama (disinterested) karma yoga every human being 
can come to the other side of the ocean of being

nishkama karma does not mean to do action without desire, because without 
desire then nobody can have the pravritti (tendency, inclination or 
perseverance) of mind [to perform action]. 

There are two causes of pravritti (tendency for activity), one is the knowledge 
of ishta sadhana that is information that by doing an action we shall gain 
fulfilment; and secondly the knowledge of krita sadhyata, knowledge that this 
work is feasible and possible for us to accomplish. 

Only by knowing these two pieces of information can there be a spur for any man 
to perform action. If there is any uncertainty about either of the two aspects 
then the spur to action will not occur. Therefore preceding a spur to action 
there must be the desire. Consequently the meaning of nishkama karma appears 
to be exactly this, that the karma suitable to be done is that which is fitting 
to offer to Bhagwan. 

nishkama karma is action done on Bhagwan's account. That karma that is to be 
offered to Bhagwan, and is not on account of being attached. Your right is only 
in the action of karma; never desire the effects.

Because the soul's life has been suffering poverty from many lifetimes; it has 
no help with this call for assistance, not knowing what to ask for. When any 
demand is made then the demand is based on one's own merit. If the soul will 
wish for the effects of its karmas, then by one's merit there will be little 
effect desired, but if one surrenders to Bhagwan then Bhagwan who is 
All-Knowing, All-Powerful, from one's own merit offered to him on high he will 
give a high gift.

Intelligently, delivering to Bhagavat (God), doing action, man gains Bhagwan's 
world. 

According to devotion he receives salvation, freedom and deliverance and is 
always released from being bound to birth and death. 

Performing karma one gets freed from bondage of life and death, this is the 
means to acquire moksha (final liberation, beatitude, redemption, absolution, 
quietus, salvation, freedom, death).

From Guru Dev, 
Swami Brahmananda Saraswati's 108 Discourses
[Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 8 of 108]
http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/UA_Hindi.htm#kaNa_8


--The power of the grace of Bhagwan is not an arrangement to commit paapa 
(sin). In truth with the endless feeling from singing bhajan (hymns) to Bhagwan 
no forbidden behaviour can be practised. 
Then there is infinite wealth, for without Bhagwan there is nothing. When this 
kind of condition of devotion will come, then only that which pleases Bhagwan 
will be done. 

In the name of Bhagwan the strength of sin fades, so much so that wicked 
wrongdoings cannot be done. 

Valmiki is an example of maharishis (sages) who were very evil and wicked 
before but who let go of their own wickedness after being fully attentive to 
worshipping Bhagwan, from when they were made good. However sinful one is 
before, yet if he applies himself to worshipping Bhagwan, then sadagati 
(salvation, good conduct) will be certain.

[Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 15 of 108]


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
 state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as 
 long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's 
 doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
 ...
 The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, 
 and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message 
 obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. 
 non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the 
 whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine 
 the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite 
 Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this 
 world-view Advaitayana Buddhism.
 ...
 Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that 
 calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney 
 attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's
 ...
 And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form
 
 That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Ravi, I am indeed blessed to be targeted by you, and am now in a select group. 
Keep up the good work...I have seen you evolve quite a bit since your first 
posts speaking in the 3-rd person and the like.
You seem to be getting smoother... and more settled down, as to your energy 
field; although some work remains to be done.
http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/redtail-hawks.jpg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 
 
 Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare Krishnas 
 are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely make you 
 Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with links from Google 
 images.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
 
  Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
  state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as 
  long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's 
  doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
  ...
  The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, 
  and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That 
  message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the 
  Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, 
  Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired 
  Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of 
  non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls 
  The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism.
  ...
  Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement 
  that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a 
  phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: 
  It's
  ...
  And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form
  
  That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, 
  Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this deceiver 
  is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha 
  Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru 
  is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or 
  white...just the same old critter but differing stripes).
  ...
  OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were 
  a Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH.  
  Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the 
  evidence that Krishna is Bhagavan?
  ...
  In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme 
  Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more.
  ...
  Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute. Duuuhhheverything 
  is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute above the 
  Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is 
  not more Absolute than dog crap. Dog = God backwards, same stuff.
  ...
  Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this is 
  pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying Supreme 
  Personality of Godhead.  Everything is Absolute with form, if it has 
  form.  But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE 
  MAN.
  ...
  Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is faith-based 
  on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's Personal Form 
  (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the 
  Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you
  ...
  See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God, 
  replacing that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's 
  usage of Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally 
  faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE 
  Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form.
  ...
  Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental 
  Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any 
  Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal form. Even 
  Hitler. So go figure.
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
   
Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - 
the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) 
claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from 
Scriptures, what's the evidence? 
   
   
   You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. 
   He didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. 
   
   This is what he said:
   
   Is the Absolute dual, or is the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[seventhray1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE

Yifu, this is the category you fall into by diminishing the adherents of
Bhagawan.

(yea, I know I've posted this before, but it is such a classic)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Ravi, I am indeed blessed to be targeted by you, and am now in a
select group. Keep up the good work...I have seen you evolve quite a bit
since your first posts speaking in the 3-rd person and the like.
 You seem to be getting smoother... and more settled down, as to your
energy field; although some work remains to be done.
 http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/redtail-hawks.jpg

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
 
 
  Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare
Krishnas are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely
make you Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with
links from Google images.
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
  
   Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna
Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are
legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a
look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare
Krishna Guru.
   ...
   The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal
Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of
Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting
the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins,
Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and
Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various
separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite
Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called
this world-view Advaitayana Buddhism.
   ...
   Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single
statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the
Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping
Krishna: It's
   ...
   And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal
form
  
   That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key
words. First, Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's
obvious this deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to
the Hare Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black
stripes, and this Guru is black with white stripes. There both
zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same old critter
but differing stripes).
   ...
   OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if
there were a Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to
(say) YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan,
what's the evidence that Krishna is Bhagavan?
   ...
   In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced
Supreme Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even
more.
   ...
   Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute.
Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There
is no Absolute above the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its
Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not more Absolute than dog crap.
Dog = God backwards, same stuff.
   ...
   Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again,
this is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying
Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everything is Absolute with form, if
it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna
is THE MAN.
   ...
   Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is
faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's
Personal Form (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow
superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom
Cruise,...where are you
   ...
   See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God,
replacing that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's
usage of Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally
faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is
THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in
Personal form.
   ...
   Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the
Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total
rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal
form. Even Hitler. So go figure.
  
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@
wrote:
   
   
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:

 Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various
stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow
below...etc) claims Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence?
   
   
You're not paying 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no such Personality, and the burden 
of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. Anybody 
however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of these 
gods; whomever She/He may be.
http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote:

 
 
 Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
 Archer -
 
 
 Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
 had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
 tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
 espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
 talk of God among them.
 
 
 But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
 of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
 well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
 blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
 allure that I expected it to have.
 
 I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
 necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
 awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
 it.
 
 I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
 that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
 I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
 God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
 have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
 I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
 further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
 richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
 
 Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
 further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
 it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
 
 Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
 and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
 on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
 that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
 self-control and enlightenment.
 
 
 And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
 all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
 personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
 and the many variations among these schools.
 
 I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
 I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
 questioned. Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
 is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?
 
 
 And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get
 very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side.
 And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I
 found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the
 Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line
 of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with
 you a little piece of it.
 
 Rick: Please.
 
 Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse
 in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we
 can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And
 according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally,
 simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.
 
 
 Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is...
 the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute.
 
 
 Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the
 heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we
 actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to
 connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give
 power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything.
 
 And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form.
 
 Rick: The Personal aspect of God.
 
 Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God – just like the
 sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's all-pervading,
 it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously existing with
 the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists, but God
 is infinite.
 
 When we say that form limits God, to say that God has no form is also a
 limit of God. So the Bhakti scriptures teach that the form of the Lord,
 or Bhagawan is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss.
 
 It's not material. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
 Supreme Personality of Godhead. 


Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.



There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely quoting 
Scriptures is on the claimants. 


So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?



Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of 
these gods; whomever She/He may be.
 http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  
  
  Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
  Archer -
  
  
  Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
  had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
  tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
  espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
  talk of God among them.
  
  
  But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
  of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
  well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
  blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
  allure that I expected it to have.
  
  I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
  necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
  awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
  it.
  
  I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
  that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
  I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
  God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
  have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
  I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
  further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
  richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
  
  Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
  further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
  it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
  
  Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
  and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
  on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
  that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
  self-control and enlightenment.
  
  
  And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
  all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
  personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
  and the many variations among these schools.
  
  I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
  I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
  questioned. Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
  is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?
  
  
  And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get
  very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side.
  And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I
  found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the
  Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line
  of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with
  you a little piece of it.
  
  Rick: Please.
  
  Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse
  in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we
  can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And
  according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally,
  simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.
  
  
  Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is...
  the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute.
  
  
  Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the
  heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we
  actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to
  connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give
  power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything.
  
  And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form.
  
  Rick: The Personal aspect of God.
  
  Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God – just like the
  sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's all-pervading,
  it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously existing with
  the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare 
Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the 
Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? 
The Guru below appears to be more liberal than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's 
saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in 
terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a 
devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali.
...
However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form 
of  Godhead Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that 
Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no 
evidence that one or the other of these gods is the Supreme Personality of 
Godhead.
...
The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare Krishna 
Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman Realization. It's a 
Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it.
...
Either there is a Supreme Personality of the Godhead or there is not. But 
should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such 
as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male gods: Krishna, YHVH, 
Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than 
Soma.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
 
  Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
  Supreme Personality of Godhead. 
 
 
 Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.
 
 
 
 There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely 
 quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. 
 
 
 So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?
 
 
 
 Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of 
 these gods; whomever She/He may be.
  http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
  
   
   
   Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
   Archer -
   
   
   Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
   had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
   tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
   espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
   talk of God among them.
   
   
   But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
   of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
   well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
   blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
   allure that I expected it to have.
   
   I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
   necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
   awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
   it.
   
   I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
   that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
   I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
   God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
   have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
   I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
   further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
   richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
   
   Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
   further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
   it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
   
   Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
   and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
   on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
   that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
   self-control and enlightenment.
   
   
   And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
   all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
   personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
   and the many variations among these schools.
   
   I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
   I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
   questioned. Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
   is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?
   
   
   And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get
   very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side.
   And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I
   found 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[emptybill]

Radhanath Swami holds a position on the ISKCON GBC – the governing
board of the Hari K's.

While what he opines is somewhat less doctrinaire than other members, in
truth he can still only spout ISKCON`s brand of Gaudiya theology.



His responses are comparable to someone at a high level in the TMO –
in other words corporate-speak.

This is one reason he iterates claims from the Gaudiya interpretation of
Shrimad Bhagavatam, since this is the only real veda for their
movement.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not
the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no such Personality, and
the burden of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the
claimants. Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving
relationship with one of these gods; whomever She/He may be.
 http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the 
 Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna 
 is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, what's the 
 evidence? 


You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He 
didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. 

This is what he said:

Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the Absolute personal, 
is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And 
sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers against the apparent 
opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. 

And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, 
and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures 
and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll 
share with you a little piece of it.

There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then 
explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can 
call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. 

And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously 
has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.

Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is... the 
realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. 

Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the heart 
of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we actually 
connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to connect to that 
Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give power, who can give 
wisdom, who can give everything. 

And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form.

-



The Guru below appears to be more liberal than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's 
saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in 
terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a 
devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali.
 ...
 However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form 
 of  Godhead Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that 
 Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no 
 evidence that one or the other of these gods is the Supreme Personality of 
 Godhead.
 ...
 The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare 
 Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman 
 Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it.
 ...
 Either there is a Supreme Personality of the Godhead or there is not. But 
 should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such 
 as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male gods: Krishna, YHVH, 
 Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than 
 Soma.
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
  
   Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
   Supreme Personality of Godhead. 
  
  
  Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.
  
  
  
  There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely 
  quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. 
  
  
  So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?
  
  
  
  Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one 
  of these gods; whomever She/He may be.
   http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
   
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
   


Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
Archer -


Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
talk of God among them.


But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
allure that I expected it to have.

I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
it.

I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long 
as it results in somebody saying Krishna. Take a look at what he's doing 
pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
...
The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and 
that the impersonal Absolute was an emanation of Krishna. That message 
obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. 
non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the 
whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the 
various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite 
Hinduism); into what Wilber calls The Great Tradition. Adi Da called this 
world-view Advaitayana Buddhism.
...
Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that 
calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney 
attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's
...
And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form

That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, 
Bhagavan. By this he really means Krishna. It's obvious this deceiver is a 
Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly the 
latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white 
stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same 
old critter but differing stripes).
...
OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a 
Bhagavan), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH.  Apart 
from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that 
Krishna is Bhagavan?
...
In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced Supreme 
Personality of Godhead, with Bhagavan, and tricked you even more.
...
Next, the sentence says ...which is the Absolute. Duuuhhheverything is 
the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute above the 
Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not 
more Absolute than dog crap. Dog = God backwards, same stuff.
...
Next to Last, he says..Absolute with Personal Form. Again, this is pure 
Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying Supreme 
Personality of Godhead.  Everything is Absolute with form, if it has form.  
But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN.
...
Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, Personal Form, this is faith-based on 
Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's Personal Form (whatever the 
word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the 
Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you
...
See what he's doing? He's eliminated Supreme Personality of God, replacing 
that with Bhagavan, and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of 
Absolute Body, or Viratarupa, with essentially, an equally faith-based, 
totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above 
other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form.
...
Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, 
the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality 
whomever is obviously The Absolute in Personal form. Even Hitler. So go 
figure.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote:
 
  Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the 
  Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims 
  Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, apart from Scriptures, 
  what's the evidence? 
 
 
 You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He 
 didn't claim that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. 
 
 This is what he said:
 
 Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the Absolute 
 personal, is the Absolute impersonal? And sometimes I would get very vague 
 answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers 
 against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. 
 
 And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the 
 two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy 
 scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. 
 And I'll share with you a little piece of it.
 
 There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then 
 explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can 
 call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. 
 
 And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously 
 has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.
 
 Brahman is the all-pervading formless, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Grace of God

[Buck]

The Unified Field. Yep, this is interesting.  Looks like Maharishi was an old 
Baptist.  Different from modern Southern Baptist doctrine this is what the 
Primitive Baptists think.1964, that's fabulous.   

That 'Free Grace', it's there.  Everyone is saved already, it is only a matter 
of knowing that.  It's like SCI provides, come to meditation and you'd know.  

There's an elder at a Primitive Baptist church over by the Des Moines River 
that preaches just like Maharishi is here in this quote.  It's his experience 
too.  He's very Christian in denomination but the guy did also learned TM very 
early on, years ago.  Like me he was a Quaker before he learned TM meditation 
at a time long ago.  He's an Iowa backwoods preacher out there in a church.  
Open hearted, he's an old soul.  

In Free Grace
Jai Guru Dev,
-Buck in FF



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote:

 
 The Grace of God.
 
 
 image.jpeg
 
 
 The Grace of God
 
 29 December 1964, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi speaking to a course at Bad
 Mergentheim, Germany
 
 Question: How do we make the grace of God come to us? 
 
 Maharishi:
 
 Grace of God is all-pervading.  It's always present.  It's not that it
 comes; it is that we begin to make use of it. . . .  There is nothing new
 that is to come; it has already come.  It has not started with us as long as
 we have not started with it.  The grace of God, the blessing of God, help
 from God, doesn't come from anywhere.  It is already there. Just like the
 air, it's already there.  Now it is up to us to breathe it or not to breathe
 it.  If we don't breathe, we begin to suffer.  If we breathe, we begin to be
 normal.
 
 Like the air, the grace of God is available to us.  It's permeating every
 fiber of our being and the being of the entire universe. . . . Only, that
 which is the all-pervading grace of God is never isolated as an individual
 entity.  It is just there.  That which is to be all-pervading is not
 isolated, not bound, and that which is not bound is finer than the finest
 existence in creation.  When we take our attention to that Being, finer than
 the finest, then we establish ourselves on the level of God's grace.
 Immediately we just enjoy.  If we don't take ourselves to the level of God's
 grace, to that level of the finer than the finest, then remaining in the
 gross we don't have it.
 
 That is the story of the grace of God.  He is said to be all-merciful . . .
 all-mercifully He has spread His grace much before we could want it.  Much
 before the need could arise, it is there available for us.
 
 Through diving during meditation, we bring our attention, our conscious
 mind, to that level of grace, and we get filled with it completely. . . . We
 associate ourselves fully with that grace and then enjoy.  That is why this
 is the merciful nature of the Almighty.  Very compassionately, very
 lovingly, He has spread His grace for us.  Any time we can take our
 attention to that level, and we begin to own it.  It's a matter of own- ing
 the grace of God.  From His side He is available.  From our side, as long as
 we hesitate to accept it, we hesitate to accept it.  We get ourselves to
 that level, and it's already there.
 
 The Grace of God is like a full lake, a big lake full of water.  Now, the
 water is there.  Any farmer can take the water to his field.  If the
 pipeline is not connected up to the level of water, the water remains. Water
 is just full, ready to flow.  But it will not flow of its own accord.  If
 the connection is made, it will naturally flow.  If the connection is not
 made, it won't flow . . . and any man is free to make the connection from
 his field to the level of water.  But if one doesn't make the connection,
 the water remains full.
 
 Just like the fullness of water in a lake or ocean, the grace of God is
 full.  Those who make a connection, who draw the pipeline through
 Transcendental Meditation, to them it flows.  And if we don't, it remains
 full.  Of itself it cannot flow.
 
 How many of you are feeling that life is becoming better and more graceful
 ever since you started meditation?  And one thing more let me ask. How many
 of you find that it's very easy to maintain? Now, this is the merciful
 nature of God.  He has created us so that we don't have to do much . . .
 very easily we enjoy His grace.
 
 Out of our experience we see that it is easy to make life bertter; it is
 easy to put an end to suffering and sorrows that used to cling to our mind
 and body before; and it is easy to be freer, better in life, by devoting a
 few minutes to draw the pipeline from the gross to the transcendent.  Just
 during meditation, we take our attention from the gross to the transcendent
 - just drawing pipeline from the outer gross through the subtle to the
 transcendental state of Being, which is the hidden level of the grace of
 God
 
 Grace of the Almighty. In order to enjoy the grace of God we should
 experience it and 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Grace of God

[Buck]

Yep


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote:

 
 The Grace of God.
 
   
 
 
 image.jpeg
 
 
 The Grace of God
 
 29 December 1964, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi speaking to a course at Bad
 Mergentheim, Germany
 
 Question: How do we make the grace of God come to us? 
 
 Maharishi:
 
 Grace of God is all-pervading.  It's always present.  It's not that it
 comes; it is that we begin to make use of it. . . .  There is nothing new
 that is to come; it has already come.  It has not started with us as long as
 we have not started with it.  The grace of God, the blessing of God, help
 from God, doesn't come from anywhere.  It is already there. Just like the
 air, it's already there.  Now it is up to us to breathe it or not to breathe
 it.  If we don't breathe, we begin to suffer.  If we breathe, we begin to be
 normal.
 
 Like the air, the grace of God is available to us.  It's permeating every
 fiber of our being and the being of the entire universe. . . . Only, that
 which is the all-pervading grace of God is never isolated as an individual
 entity.  It is just there.  That which is to be all-pervading is not
 isolated, not bound, and that which is not bound is finer than the finest
 existence in creation.  When we take our attention to that Being, finer than
 the finest, then we establish ourselves on the level of God's grace.
 Immediately we just enjoy.  If we don't take ourselves to the level of God's
 grace, to that level of the finer than the finest, then remaining in the
 gross we don't have it.
 
 That is the story of the grace of God.  He is said to be all-merciful . . .
 all-mercifully He has spread His grace much before we could want it.  Much
 before the need could arise, it is there available for us.
 
 Through diving during meditation, we bring our attention, our conscious
 mind, to that level of grace, and we get filled with it completely. . . . We
 associate ourselves fully with that grace and then enjoy.  That is why this
 is the merciful nature of the Almighty.  Very compassionately, very
 lovingly, He has spread His grace for us.  Any time we can take our
 attention to that level, and we begin to own it.  It's a matter of own- ing
 the grace of God.  From His side He is available.  From our side, as long as
 we hesitate to accept it, we hesitate to accept it.  We get ourselves to
 that level, and it's already there.
 
 The Grace of God is like a full lake, a big lake full of water.  Now, the
 water is there.  Any farmer can take the water to his field.  If the
 pipeline is not connected up to the level of water, the water remains. Water
 is just full, ready to flow.  But it will not flow of its own accord.  If
 the connection is made, it will naturally flow.  If the connection is not
 made, it won't flow . . . and any man is free to make the connection from
 his field to the level of water.  But if one doesn't make the connection,
 the water remains full.
 
 Just like the fullness of water in a lake or ocean, the grace of God is
 full.  Those who make a connection, who draw the pipeline through
 Transcendental Meditation, to them it flows.  And if we don't, it remains
 full.  Of itself it cannot flow.
 
 How many of you are feeling that life is becoming better and more graceful
 ever since you started meditation?  And one thing more let me ask. How many
 of you find that it's very easy to maintain? Now, this is the merciful
 nature of God.  He has created us so that we don't have to do much . . .
 very easily we enjoy His grace.
 
 Out of our experience we see that it is easy to make life bertter; it is
 easy to put an end to suffering and sorrows that used to cling to our mind
 and body before; and it is easy to be freer, better in life, by devoting a
 few minutes to draw the pipeline from the gross to the transcendent.  Just
 during meditation, we take our attention from the gross to the transcendent
 - just drawing pipeline from the outer gross through the subtle to the
 transcendental state of Being, which is the hidden level of the grace of
 God
 
 Grace of the Almighty. In order to enjoy the grace of God we should
 experience it and understand it, have the knowledge of it and have the
 experience of it.  We should have experience at every level.
 
 God is omnipresent.  God is all that there is.  Therefore no level of
 experience is exclusive of Him, and therefore at every level of experience
 we should be able to experience Him, and simultaneously at every level of
 understanding we should be able to understand Him . . . we should know Him.
 . . .  We start experiencing Him from today or from tomorrow.  Better to
 understand God and enjoy His grace and experience Him at every level of
 experience and understand Him at every level of understanding.
 
 It is necessary to understand the different levels of life.  Having known
 the different levels of life, having understood the different levels of
 creation, we are able to see what creates and pervades all 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[whynotnow7]

...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the 
intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- 
and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime.

Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the 
intellect mistaking?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining 
  pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying 
  to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? 
  Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share?
 
 * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling 
 lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part 
 of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right 
 while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As 
 to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand 
 the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive 
 here is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so 
 that I can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has 
 accomplished that most beautifully.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of 
 the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be 
 *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime.

whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:
 
 Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the 
 intellect mistaking?
 
* * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to Alex, 
whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those trapped 
I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is that these 
intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality itself, or ourself, 
by wrongly believing that the solution to our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) 
lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we 
place the fulfillment of our desires outside our own immediate Being or 
Presence or Love, and therefore actually outside of our own immediate power to 
fulfill. By mistakenly believing in the power of spacetime we actually 
disempower ourself -- often with acute suffering, for this is Nature's way of 
telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to be the truth.

Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through this 
predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a heartfelt 
surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves about what our 
deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need is for some thing 
like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment, contentment, ecstasy, 
creatorship, prosperity, Life, Love, Wholeness, God, Heaven, coming Home -- all 
different angles of the same thing -- and that this burning need really, 
really matters Here and Now, and that this burning need is obviously *never* 
going to be fulfilled sometime in the future, because the future is an 
illusory carrot on a stick; that permanent peace or contentment or fulfillment 
or world-perfection or God we so ardently desire, by definition must lie in 
unconditional Permanence, not in the ever-changing and conditional waves of 
spacetime. 

So if our fulfillment is to be permanent, it must be outside of spacetime; 
hence our fulfillment must somehow already be present Here and Now. So we 
actually surrender our belief in the resistance of spacetime, and we surrender 
or rise up into the ever-present fulfillment of our deepest need, Here and Now, 
on the permanent feeling-level. This is where the discriminative intellect is 
no longer mistaken, for it is surrendered into intuitively appreciating the 
Great Mystery of Us, the heartfelt perfection of God's Will in this moment, 
Here and Now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[whynotnow7]

Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external 
events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution 
within. This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of 
the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are 
conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 
 
 RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
  ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of 
  the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be 
  *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime.
 
 whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
  Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the 
  intellect mistaking?
  
 * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to Alex, 
 whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those trapped 
 I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is that these 
 intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality itself, or 
 ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most acutely 
 unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here and 
 not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires outside our 
 own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore actually outside of 
 our own immediate power to fulfill. By mistakenly believing in the power of 
 spacetime we actually disempower ourself -- often with acute suffering, for 
 this is Nature's way of telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to be the 
 truth.
 
 Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through this 
 predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a heartfelt 
 surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves about what our 
 deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need is for some thing 
 like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment, contentment, ecstasy, 
 creatorship, prosperity, Life, Love, Wholeness, God, Heaven, coming Home -- 
 all different angles of the same thing -- and that this burning need 
 really, really matters Here and Now, and that this burning need is obviously 
 *never* going to be fulfilled sometime in the future, because the future 
 is an illusory carrot on a stick; that permanent peace or contentment or 
 fulfillment or world-perfection or God we so ardently desire, by definition 
 must lie in unconditional Permanence, not in the ever-changing and 
 conditional waves of spacetime. 
 
 So if our fulfillment is to be permanent, it must be outside of spacetime; 
 hence our fulfillment must somehow already be present Here and Now. So we 
 actually surrender our belief in the resistance of spacetime, and we 
 surrender or rise up into the ever-present fulfillment of our deepest need, 
 Here and Now, on the permanent feeling-level. This is where the 
 discriminative intellect is no longer mistaken, for it is surrendered into 
 intuitively appreciating the Great Mystery of Us, the heartfelt perfection of 
 God's Will in this moment, Here and Now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[blusc0ut]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external 
 events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution 
 within.

Couldn't it be, instead of an 'either or' and 'as well as'? As you paint it 
now, it sounds as it is a contradiction, turning outside to improve any given 
situation, OR turning inside to USE the situation to understand ones own 
psychic reactions and mechanics, but why couldn't the one accompany the other? 
We could do both, right, use an outside event to understand and improve 
ourselves, AND do our best to improve the situation. Otherwise, it would really 
amount to escapism and solipsism.

 This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the 
 BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are 
 conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-)
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  
  
  RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
   ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake 
   of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously desires to be 
   *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped in spacetime.
  
  whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
   
   Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the 
   intellect mistaking?
   
  * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to 
  Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those 
  trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is 
  that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality 
  itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most 
  acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here 
  and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires outside 
  our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore actually outside 
  of our own immediate power to fulfill. By mistakenly believing in the power 
  of spacetime we actually disempower ourself -- often with acute suffering, 
  for this is Nature's way of telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to 
  be the truth.
  
  Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through this 
  predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a heartfelt 
  surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves about what 
  our deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need is for some 
  thing like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment, contentment, 
  ecstasy, creatorship, prosperity, Life, Love, Wholeness, God, Heaven, 
  coming Home -- all different angles of the same thing -- and that this 
  burning need really, really matters Here and Now, and that this burning 
  need is obviously *never* going to be fulfilled sometime in the future, 
  because the future is an illusory carrot on a stick; that permanent peace 
  or contentment or fulfillment or world-perfection or God we so ardently 
  desire, by definition must lie in unconditional Permanence, not in the 
  ever-changing and conditional waves of spacetime. 
  
  So if our fulfillment is to be permanent, it must be outside of spacetime; 
  hence our fulfillment must somehow already be present Here and Now. So we 
  actually surrender our belief in the resistance of spacetime, and we 
  surrender or rise up into the ever-present fulfillment of our deepest need, 
  Here and Now, on the permanent feeling-level. This is where the 
  discriminative intellect is no longer mistaken, for it is surrendered into 
  intuitively appreciating the Great Mystery of Us, the heartfelt perfection 
  of God's Will in this moment, Here and Now.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[whynotnow7]

Right, I was asking in this case for an example of the pragyaparadh  thingie -  
'mistake of the intellect', which is somewhat abstract wrt everyday life. I 
understand it better as a principle or dynamic of life vs. a blueprint for how 
to act or think.

I wouldn't advocate if I were hungry to get in touch with myself vs. find some 
food - lol. 
I find it helpful when examining any anger or sadness or frustration or fear 
that may arise in me, and tracing that back to some refusal of mine to accept 
where I am, vs. blaming some external source. I am sure there a lot of uses 
for it.:-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
  Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external 
  events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution 
  within.
 
 Couldn't it be, instead of an 'either or' and 'as well as'? As you paint it 
 now, it sounds as it is a contradiction, turning outside to improve any given 
 situation, OR turning inside to USE the situation to understand ones own 
 psychic reactions and mechanics, but why couldn't the one accompany the 
 other? We could do both, right, use an outside event to understand and 
 improve ourselves, AND do our best to improve the situation. Otherwise, it 
 would really amount to escapism and solipsism.
 
  This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the 
  BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality are 
  conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-)
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
  
   
   
   RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the 
mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously 
desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is trapped 
in spacetime.
   
   whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:

Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is the 
intellect mistaking?

   * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to 
   Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for those 
   trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding here is 
   that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking reality 
   itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to our most 
   acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime not-Here 
   and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our desires 
   outside our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and therefore 
   actually outside of our own immediate power to fulfill. By mistakenly 
   believing in the power of spacetime we actually disempower ourself -- 
   often with acute suffering, for this is Nature's way of telling us we are 
   mistakenly holding a lie to be the truth.
   
   Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through 
   this predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a 
   heartfelt surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with ourselves 
   about what our deepest need really is in this moment, and that this need 
   is for some thing like permanent peace, understanding, fullfillment, 
   contentment, ecstasy, creatorship, prosperity, Life, Love, Wholeness, 
   God, Heaven, coming Home -- all different angles of the same thing -- 
   and that this burning need really, really matters Here and Now, and that 
   this burning need is obviously *never* going to be fulfilled sometime in 
   the future, because the future is an illusory carrot on a stick; that 
   permanent peace or contentment or fulfillment or world-perfection or God 
   we so ardently desire, by definition must lie in unconditional 
   Permanence, not in the ever-changing and conditional waves of spacetime. 
   
   So if our fulfillment is to be permanent, it must be outside of 
   spacetime; hence our fulfillment must somehow already be present Here and 
   Now. So we actually surrender our belief in the resistance of spacetime, 
   and we surrender or rise up into the ever-present fulfillment of our 
   deepest need, Here and Now, on the permanent feeling-level. This is where 
   the discriminative intellect is no longer mistaken, for it is surrendered 
   into intuitively appreciating the Great Mystery of Us, the heartfelt 
   perfection of God's Will in this moment, Here and Now.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[blusc0ut]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Right, I was asking in this case for an example of the pragyaparadh  thingie 
 -  'mistake of the intellect',

Coincidence, I was just looking up, googling the sankrit term, as I had 
forgotten it, and came across some meovement and also some non-movement 
definitions. Here of the later:

prajnaparadha /praj·na·pa·ra·dha/ (pruj#8243;nah-pah-rah-thah´) [Sanskrit] in 
ayurveda, deliberate, willful indulgence in unhealthy practices that leads to 
unbalanced body functions and disease.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prajnaparadha

I think this is another nice explanation:

PragnyaParadh roughly translates to crimes against one's own wisdom. Its a 
concept in Ayurveda (and Vedanta and Yoga) which implies conscience without the 
christian overlay of sin. I like this term because it summarizes neatly the 
importance of the Truth within, as well as identifies the consequences of 
ignoring that small clear voice. Disease happens because of PradnyaParadh - not 
taking care of ourselves when we know better. All difficult challenges are made 
worse because of this - to know better after all, is to have the opportunity to 
do better. Free will is what allows us to make those choices.
http://aparnagnanashini.blogspot.com/2010/11/pradnyapragnyaprajnaparadh.html

In TM Ayurveda, there is a more broad connection to the idea of Avidya in 
Advaita, pragya aparadh is the loss of the Self, of Wholeness in favor of the 
parts. Its like maya in vedanta, which makes the stick appear to be a snake, an 
overlay over reality, a *superimpostion*. (Did anyone ever hear this word by a 
neo-advaita teacher?)


 which is somewhat abstract wrt everyday life. I understand it better as a 
 principle or dynamic of life vs. a blueprint for how to act or think.
 
 I wouldn't advocate if I were hungry to get in touch with myself vs. find 
 some food - lol. 
 I find it helpful when examining any anger or sadness or frustration or fear 
 that may arise in me, and tracing that back to some refusal of mine to accept 
 where I am, vs. blaming some external source. I am sure there a lot of uses 
 for it.:-)
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
   Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external 
   events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution 
   within.
  
  Couldn't it be, instead of an 'either or' and 'as well as'? As you paint it 
  now, it sounds as it is a contradiction, turning outside to improve any 
  given situation, OR turning inside to USE the situation to understand ones 
  own psychic reactions and mechanics, but why couldn't the one accompany the 
  other? We could do both, right, use an outside event to understand and 
  improve ourselves, AND do our best to improve the situation. Otherwise, it 
  would really amount to escapism and solipsism.
  
   This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of the 
   BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality 
   are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-)
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
   


RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the 
 mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously 
 desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is 
 trapped in spacetime.

whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
 Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is 
 the intellect mistaking?
 
* * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks to 
Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak for 
those trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am finding 
here is that these intellects are essentially mistaking or mis-taking 
reality itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the solution to 
our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, i.e., sometime 
not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we place the fulfillment of our 
desires outside our own immediate Being or Presence or Love, and 
therefore actually outside of our own immediate power to fulfill. By 
mistakenly believing in the power of spacetime we actually disempower 
ourself -- often with acute suffering, for this is Nature's way of 
telling us we are mistakenly holding a lie to be the truth.

Every I-particle in us apparently finds our own way out of or through 
this predicament, but for us the common denominator seems to be a 
heartfelt surrender into our deepest truth: We are honest with 
ourselves about what our deepest need really is in this moment, and 
that this need is for some thing like permanent peace, understanding, 
fullfillment, 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[Vaj]

On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:22 PM, blusc0ut wrote:

 a *superimpostion*. (Did anyone ever hear this word by a neo-advaita teacher?)


Yes, but it is rather rare.

It's usually from Neo-A's who had actual advaita vedanta gurusst...

Pretty funny how the Sankrit word Aropa (a-ROPE-uh) is so close to the Anglish 
word rope, as in 'the rope and the snake'.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[whynotnow7]

Interesting - I like both of those definitions, although they both involve 
conscious action on the part of the doer. 

I was seeing pragnyaparadh as one of those Gee I never thought of that type 
of things, unconscious behavior to blame the 'outside'. A truer mistake, if you 
will, than consciously BSing oneself.

The reason being, I can't conceive of willfully doing something to hurt myself, 
so I have to conclude someone acting in that way would be virtually asleep - 
not much awareness. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
  Right, I was asking in this case for an example of the pragyaparadh  
  thingie -  'mistake of the intellect',
 
 Coincidence, I was just looking up, googling the sankrit term, as I had 
 forgotten it, and came across some meovement and also some non-movement 
 definitions. Here of the later:
 
 prajnaparadha /praj·na·pa·ra·dha/ (pruj#8243;nah-pah-rah-thah´) [Sanskrit] 
 in ayurveda, deliberate, willful indulgence in unhealthy practices that leads 
 to unbalanced body functions and disease.
 http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prajnaparadha
 
 I think this is another nice explanation:
 
 PragnyaParadh roughly translates to crimes against one's own wisdom. Its a 
 concept in Ayurveda (and Vedanta and Yoga) which implies conscience without 
 the christian overlay of sin. I like this term because it summarizes neatly 
 the importance of the Truth within, as well as identifies the consequences of 
 ignoring that small clear voice. Disease happens because of PradnyaParadh - 
 not taking care of ourselves when we know better. All difficult challenges 
 are made worse because of this - to know better after all, is to have the 
 opportunity to do better. Free will is what allows us to make those choices.
 http://aparnagnanashini.blogspot.com/2010/11/pradnyapragnyaprajnaparadh.html
 
 In TM Ayurveda, there is a more broad connection to the idea of Avidya in 
 Advaita, pragya aparadh is the loss of the Self, of Wholeness in favor of 
 the parts. Its like maya in vedanta, which makes the stick appear to be a 
 snake, an overlay over reality, a *superimpostion*. (Did anyone ever hear 
 this word by a neo-advaita teacher?)
 
 
  which is somewhat abstract wrt everyday life. I understand it better as a 
  principle or dynamic of life vs. a blueprint for how to act or think.
  
  I wouldn't advocate if I were hungry to get in touch with myself vs. find 
  some food - lol. 
  I find it helpful when examining any anger or sadness or frustration or 
  fear that may arise in me, and tracing that back to some refusal of mine to 
  accept where I am, vs. blaming some external source. I am sure there a 
  lot of uses for it.:-)
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote:
  
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
   
Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of 
external events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more 
permanent solution within.
   
   Couldn't it be, instead of an 'either or' and 'as well as'? As you paint 
   it now, it sounds as it is a contradiction, turning outside to improve 
   any given situation, OR turning inside to USE the situation to understand 
   ones own psychic reactions and mechanics, but why couldn't the one 
   accompany the other? We could do both, right, use an outside event to 
   understand and improve ourselves, AND do our best to improve the 
   situation. Otherwise, it would really amount to escapism and solipsism.
   
This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of 
the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and 
duality are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:

 
 
 RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
  ...what I have been calling lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the 
  mistake of the intellect! It is that part of us that most furiously 
  desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right while it is 
  trapped in spacetime.
 
 whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
  Hi Rory - I don't get this. Can you give an example please? What is 
  the intellect mistaking?
  
 * * * Hi Jim! This will be my last post for the week -- many thanks 
 to Alex, whose timely heads-up I much appreciate! I can only speak 
 for those trapped I-particles we have discovered in Us. What I am 
 finding here is that these intellects are essentially mistaking or 
 mis-taking reality itself, or ourself, by wrongly believing that the 
 solution to our most acutely unfulfilled need(s) lies in spacetime, 
 i.e., sometime not-Here and not-Now. In this way, we place the 
 fulfillment of our desires outside our own immediate Being or 
 Presence or Love, and therefore actually 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[WillyTex]

  Its like maya in vedanta, which makes the stick 
  appear to be a snake, an overlay over reality, 
  a *superimpostion*. (Did anyone ever hear this 
  word by a neo-advaita teacher?)
 
Vaj:
 Yes, but it is rather rare.

Just about everyone on the planet, whether 'neo' or 
not, knows that the superimposition doctrine is 
the cornerstone of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta.

Shankaracharya explains the genesis of ignorance 
and our perception of the plurality of things in 
terms of superimposition, what Maharishi called 
'identification'.

The classic example is the rope-snake metaphor: In 
the night you see a snake; in the light of day you 
realize what you thought was a snake was but a 
coiled-up rope. Likewise, the horns on a hare; 
a sky-flower; or fool's gold.

The perception of a plurality of things where 
there is only one thing, is a superimposition. For
example, the analogy of the space in the pot - 
the point being that there is only one space inside 
or outside the pot. 

It is a superimposition to think that there is a 
'pot' with different spaces inside and out, when 
in reality there is just one space everywhere. 
That's the difference between relative ignorance 
and absolute knowledge.

Read more:

'A Companion Encyclopedia of Asia Philosophy'
By Brian Carr and Indira Mahalingam
Routledge, 1997

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Oh OK - got it. Finding false fulfillment in the manipulation of external 
 events to fix the problem, instead of finding a more permanent solution 
 within. This Buddhist monk (Tsetan somebody) was talking about that on one of 
 the BATGAP interviews, and how with the addition of love, anger and duality 
 are conquered. That was the gist. Thanks! :-)
 
* * * Yes! Once again, far more succinct than my offering. :-)

Prajnaparadh may indeed be described as the mistake of placing our faith in 
Doing over Being, trying to Do (something) in order to Be (fulfilled), whereas 
if we quicken first to the subtle but everpresent glory of Being (fulfilled), 
Doing flows effortlessly. Or, established in Being (or Unity), perform Action.

This appears to be the gist of what Krishna means when saying to perform 
action without concern for its fruits, after dedicating the fruits to Me.

The whole carrot-on-a-stick analogy refers mostly to the Time half of the 
Space-Time illusion or lie, when we believe ourselves to be inside Time, 
but there may also be a Space aspect to prajnaparadh. When we believe ourselves 
to be primarily inside Space, we tend to identify with one point-Self as 
opposed to another, and often create suffering for ourself by trying to 
discriminate or discern which point-of-view is right. As the intellect 
clarifies, some I-points find that holding to either end of the conflict is 
painful, simply because of the not-Self exclusion involved in choosing. Here, 
the solution may involve realizing that the heartfelt truth does not lie in 
choosing between the self and the other, but in embracing both self and other 
simultaneously, as a pattern within Us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining 
  pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying 
  to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? 
  Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share?
 
 * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling 
 lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part 
 of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right 
 while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As 
 to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand 
 the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive 
 here is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so 
 that I can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has 
 accomplished that most beautifully.


Rory, I am enjoying these dialogues of you and Jim and others a lot.  My 
experience too.  I find it fun to have someone else put words to it in a way 
that I may not be verbal.  It is a fun stabilization as this goes along.  Is 
nice that you guys were able to come back in here to FFL and feel safe enough 
to talk.  I like the  way you are swallowing up whole the aggression as it 
comes back and tries its hold.  Welcome back.
-Dug in FF

Looking through old hymns now, this one made me think of this post of yours.

Rise, rise my soul, and leave the ground,
Stretch all thy thoughts abroad, 
and rouse up every tuneful sound
To praise the eternal Unified Field)

Creatures with all their endless race,
Thy pow'r and praise proclaim;
But saints that taste Thy richer grace
Delight to bless Thy name.
-Watts 1707

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[yifuxero]

http://www.fantasygallery.net/roberts/art_8_mynewpal.html

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
   
   When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining 
   pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as 
   lying to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people 
   suffer? Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share?
  
  * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling 
  lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that 
  part of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never 
  be right while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a 
  nutshell. As to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many 
  who understand the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have 
  mentioned, my main motive here is to bring up previously unconscious parts 
  of myself into awareness so that I can fully integrate them in Love, and 
  this conversation has accomplished that most beautifully.
 
 
 Rory, I am enjoying these dialogues of you and Jim and others a lot.  My 
 experience too.  I find it fun to have someone else put words to it in a way 
 that I may not be verbal.  It is a fun stabilization as this goes along.  Is 
 nice that you guys were able to come back in here to FFL and feel safe enough 
 to talk.  I like the  way you are swallowing up whole the aggression as it 
 comes back and tries its hold.  Welcome back.
 -Dug in FF
 
 Looking through old hymns now, this one made me think of this post of yours.
 
 Rise, rise my soul, and leave the ground,
 Stretch all thy thoughts abroad, 
 and rouse up every tuneful sound
 To praise the eternal Unified Field)
 
 Creatures with all their endless race,
 Thy pow'r and praise proclaim;
 But saints that taste Thy richer grace
 Delight to bless Thy name.
 -Watts 1707

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:

 Rory, I am enjoying these dialogues of you and Jim and others a lot.  My 
 experience too.  I find it fun to have someone else put words to it in a way 
 that I may not be verbal.  It is a fun stabilization as this goes along.  Is 
 nice that you guys were able to come back in here to FFL and feel safe 
 enough to talk.  I like the  way you are swallowing up whole the aggression 
 as it comes back and tries its hold.  Welcome back.
 -Dug in FF
 
 Looking through old hymns now, this one made me think of this post of yours.
 
 Rise, rise my soul, and leave the ground,
 Stretch all thy thoughts abroad, 
 and rouse up every tuneful sound
 To praise the eternal Unified Field)
 
 Creatures with all their endless race,
 Thy pow'r and praise proclaim;
 But saints that taste Thy richer grace
 Delight to bless Thy name.
 -Watts 1707

* * * Thanks, D(o)ug! It is a pleasure to be here. I didn't leave because it 
wasn't safe, though -- Some of my more polarizing I-points just had to be 
integrated and Loved and healed in silence :-) 

Excellent hymn! Definitely catches some of the flavor of all of Us singing 
eternally in harmony. Personally, I have no problem with Eternal God, though 
Unified Field evokes a bit more of our cooperative and non-local resonance, 
perhaps rather like the primordial Body of Christ :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote:
 
 When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining 
 pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying 
 to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? 
 Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share?

* * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling 
lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part 
of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right 
while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As to 
understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand the 
mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive here 
is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so that I 
can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has accomplished that 
most beautifully. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[yifuxero]

http://www.startlingart.com/Viewer.asp?ImageSource=fine_artFileName=BeCarefullWhatyouAskFor

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  When Rory says we are lying about Reality, is this his way of explaining 
  pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect or is he framing it as lying 
  to persuade us that he understands better than anyone why people suffer? 
  Hubris or unaware of his own motive, need, insistence to share?
 
 * * * Raunchy, I loved this post of yours. Yes, what I have been calling 
 lying is indeed pragyaparadh, the mistake of the intellect! It is that part 
 of us that most furiously desires to be *right* -- and yet can never be right 
 while it is trapped in spacetime. Many thanks; you put it in a nutshell. As 
 to understanding better than anyone -- there appear to be many who understand 
 the mechanics far more clearly than I do! As I have mentioned, my main motive 
 here is to bring up previously unconscious parts of myself into awareness so 
 that I can fully integrate them in Love, and this conversation has 
 accomplished that most beautifully.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 
 OK, everybody, I give up! Having already flooded the web with 28 posts, I am 
 going to try to sum up in this one. First, my apologies, Judy, in coming off 
 as hostile and angry to you. I certainly am no stranger to those lovely 
 emotions, and doubtless they are in here somewhere. snip

I found them! Absolutely stunning! Been loving it all night. Truly impressive 
nuclear rage, hostility, and burning desire to be *right*! Many thanks for 
pointing it out, Judy; I *really* appreciate it; it's been a lot of fun 
integrating this ancient Dragon-Being and bringing it Home again...

God, I love FFL! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 snip
  * * * Judy is correct; it is not possible for anyone to
  counteract the will of God, from Our point of view at
  any rate. However, it is entirely possible for people to
  resist what IS, to separate themselves from what IS and
  lie about it (it should be different),
 
 That is not a lie, Rory. It may be a mistake, it may be
 a mistake that results in suffering, but it isn't a lie.

* * * It is not necessarily a conscious lie, no -- but it is indeed a 
(sometimes very subtle) lie, in my experience, anyhow: a thought which 
contradicts the truth. It is a lie which we have told ourselves and which we 
ourselves believe -- hence the suffering.

 
 Nor, BTW, is separateness a belief. Rather, it's an
 *experiential reality* for the resisters, just as much
 as non-separateness is for the non-resisters.

* * * It is an experiential reality based upon our believing our own lies, in 
my experience. YMMV, of course.

 Keep using terms like lie and belief if what you want
 to do is *reinforce* resistance and separateness.

* * * I am trying to point out the that the core of our resistance and 
separateness in any given moment is a (usually very) subtle lie which we have 
told ourselves and which we (as yet) unconsciously believe. At least in my 
field of awareness, I am doing some great work on untangling these lies, if I 
do say so myself! Again, YMMV :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
  snip
   * * * Judy is correct; it is not possible for anyone to
   counteract the will of God, from Our point of view at
   any rate. However, it is entirely possible for people to
   resist what IS, to separate themselves from what IS and
   lie about it (it should be different),
  
  That is not a lie, Rory. It may be a mistake, it may be
  a mistake that results in suffering, but it isn't a lie.
 
 * * * It is not necessarily a conscious lie, no -- but it is
 indeed a (sometimes very subtle) lie, in my experience,
 anyhow: a thought which contradicts the truth.

If I don't know the truth experientially--if my experiential
reality is of separateness--then you simply cannot legitimately
call it a lie. I'm telling the truth about my experiential
reality.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 If I don't know the truth experientially--if my experiential
 reality is of separateness--then you simply cannot legitimately
 call it a lie. I'm telling the truth about my experiential
 reality.

* * * Yes! Separateness is an entirely legitimate experiential reality, one 
based on our subtle rejection of what IS. And our perception of our 
experiential reality -- what IS -- is completely fine, completely innocent, no 
matter what we think. Where it hurts -- what I am calling a lie -- is when we 
think it *should* be different than that. 

For example, the thought, Maharishi (or pick anyone) is a 
liar/demon/charlatan/energy-vampire/fool on the hill/etc. (pick a trait, any 
trait) is completely fine, if that is our actual innocent thought. That's just 
the movie or story we happen to have created for ourselves in that moment. So 
far, so good. That's what it's all about -- story-telling, for fun and profit: 
i.e. self-discovery. That is not what I would call the Lie, if we actually 
believe what we are telling ourselves. That's actually our Truth in this 
moment. (And if someone else wants to come in and challenge that Truth with 
alternative data, all well and good!)

Where we get into trouble (or suffering) is when we believe the subtle Lie -- 
or *resistance* --  around that original thought, thus: Maharishi (or anyone) 
*shouldn't* be a liar/demon/charlatan/energy-vampire/fool on the hill -- 
that's what hurts. That's where the rejection of our Truth -- or the actual Lie 
-- comes in, and that's what separates Us from our own movie. Not that there's 
anything wrong with that, except it hurts when we do it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  If I don't know the truth experientially--if my experiential
  reality is of separateness--then you simply cannot legitimately
  call it a lie. I'm telling the truth about my experiential
  reality.
 
 * * * Yes! Separateness is an entirely legitimate experiential
 reality, one based on our subtle rejection of what IS. And our 
 perception of our experiential reality -- what IS -- is
 completely fine, completely innocent, no matter what we think. 
 Where it hurts -- what I am calling a lie -- is when we think
 it *should* be different than that.

I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise.
As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a
mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie.

In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh,
well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as
it is.

It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be
for me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise.
 As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a
 mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie.
 
 In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh,
 well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as
 it is.
 
 It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be
 for me.

* * * OK. Perfection aside, how about the thought, It must be OK for this 
terrible suffering to BE, because it IS in this moment? And even, it must be 
OK for me to feel awful about this terrible suffering, because I *do* in this 
moment?... Would that be a lie also? 

I see it as simply surrendering to what IS, simply because it IS. We don't have 
to understand it; we don't have to like it; we simply have to let it BE, in 
this moment. Refusal to do so is what I am calling the big Lie. As the AA 
people are wont to say, when we argue with with Reality, we only lose 100% of 
the time.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise.
  As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a
  mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie.
  
  In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh,
  well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as
  it is.
  
  It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be
  for me.
 
 * * * OK. Perfection aside, how about the thought, It must
 be OK for this terrible suffering to BE, because it IS in
 this moment?

That would be an utterly irrelevant thought for me. The
relevant thought would be, This terrible suffering should
not exist one moment longer.

 And even, it must be OK for me to feel awful about this
 terrible suffering, because I *do* in this moment?... 
 Would that be a lie also?

Again, irrelevant.

 I see it as simply surrendering to what IS, simply because
 it IS. We don't have to understand it; we don't have to
 like it; we simply have to let it BE, in this moment.

We don't have any choice in this moment but to let it
be, so that's also irrelevant.

 Refusal to do so is what I am calling the big Lie. As
 the AA people are wont to say, when we argue with with
 Reality, we only lose 100% of the time.

I'm not sure they're talking about Reality, as opposed to
plain-vanilla, lower-case reality.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

 
Rory wrote: OK. Perfection aside, how about the thought, It must
  be OK for this terrible suffering to BE, because it IS in
  this moment?

authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 That would be an utterly irrelevant thought for me. The
 relevant thought would be, This terrible suffering should
 not exist one moment longer.

* * * Interesting! How does your bodymind feel when you hold that thought? For 
me that would probably still be resistance to its existence in this moment, and 
would create tension, contraction, anger, etc., but YMMV.
 
RG:  And even, it must be OK for me to feel awful about this
  terrible suffering, because I *do* in this moment?... 
  Would that be a lie also?
 
JS:  Again, irrelevant.

* * * Irrelevant to what? 

RG: I see it as simply surrendering to what IS, simply because
  it IS. We don't have to understand it; we don't have to
  like it; we simply have to let it BE, in this moment.
 
JS: We don't have any choice in this moment but to let it
 be, so that's also irrelevant.

* * * Oh, OK, I see. But that's exactly it! I find that that's the key to my 
suffering. I  find that I *am* subtly resisting what IS in this moment when I 
suffer. And when I uncover that subtle resistance, and try holding the opposite 
thought -- it *should* be in this moment -- it dissolves the samskara.

 
RG: Refusal to do so is what I am calling the big Lie. As
  the AA people are wont to say, when we argue with with
  Reality, we only lose 100% of the time.
 
JS: I'm not sure they're talking about Reality, as opposed to
 plain-vanilla, lower-case reality.

* * * That's the big joke! I find that reality *is* Reality, when we don't 
resist it!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[shanti2218411]

To me this is one of those discussions which IMHO can't actually be 
resolved.People who are awake' will experience reality ,whatever the hell 
that is :), as non dual, people who are notawake will experience reality as 
separate from the self, I think the mistake
is thinking that one state is somehow closer to the TRUTH than the other.For 
me Reality is an endless Mystery.One thing I am sure about is that I have no 
clue what the TRUTH: is, although I do have a lot of theories about what it 
is! LOL.I am also pretty sure that nobody else has clue either.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   I disagree. That isn't a lie either, subtle or otherwise.
   As I said before, it may be a *mistake*, it may be a
   mistake that causes suffering, but it isn't a lie.
   
   In fact, what *would* be a lie would be if I said, Oh,
   well, all this terrible suffering is perfect just as
   it is.
   
   It might not be a lie for you to say it, but it would be
   for me.
  
  * * * OK. Perfection aside, how about the thought, It must
  be OK for this terrible suffering to BE, because it IS in
  this moment?
 
 That would be an utterly irrelevant thought for me. The
 relevant thought would be, This terrible suffering should
 not exist one moment longer.
 
  And even, it must be OK for me to feel awful about this
  terrible suffering, because I *do* in this moment?... 
  Would that be a lie also?
 
 Again, irrelevant.
 
  I see it as simply surrendering to what IS, simply because
  it IS. We don't have to understand it; we don't have to
  like it; we simply have to let it BE, in this moment.
 
 We don't have any choice in this moment but to let it
 be, so that's also irrelevant.
 
  Refusal to do so is what I am calling the big Lie. As
  the AA people are wont to say, when we argue with with
  Reality, we only lose 100% of the time.
 
 I'm not sure they're talking about Reality, as opposed to
 plain-vanilla, lower-case reality.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The will of God

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shanti2218411 kc21d@... wrote:

 To me this is one of those discussions which IMHO can't actually be 
 resolved.People who are awake' will experience reality ,whatever the hell 
 that is :), as non dual, people who are notawake will experience reality as 
 separate from the self, I think the mistake
 is thinking that one state is somehow closer to the TRUTH than the 
 other.For me Reality is an endless Mystery.One thing I am sure about is 
 that I have no clue what the TRUTH: is, although I do have a lot of 
 theories about what it is! LOL.I am also pretty sure that nobody else has 
 clue either.

* * * Quite right; Reality is indeed an endless Mystery. I am not actually 
talking here about grasping Reality; I am only speaking of our resistance to 
what we *think* it is -- i.e., our subtle resistance to whatever movie or story 
we are superimposing upon the endless Mystery: The thought that This should 
not be! That is what I find actually contracts us and creates our suffering.