[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Richard J. Williams]

jstein wrote:
> Wrong once more. *Nobody* would be a "flagrant
> overposter" at 50 per week in the sense the
> 35-post limit was designed to curb.
> 
According to the moderator, you are a flagrant 
over-poster: you are limited to 25 posts per week. 
Put a lid on it!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2007, at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > Nope, wrong, Sal. Read what he wrote again: "The
> > ORIGINAL GUIDELINE was put in place to curb flagrant
> > overposters" (my emphasis). The original posting
> > limit was *not* put in place to curb Jim; he was
> > *not* considered one of the "flagrant overposters"
> > pre-guideline.
> 
> Um, Judy, there was no overposting, "pre-guideline," by 
> definition. In order to overpost, there has to be some
> known boundary one's crossed.

Sorry, wrong again. That doesn't even make sense.
If there had been no overposting, obviously no
limit would have been called for in the first place.

> > And even if he were to make 50 posts
> > per week now, he still wouldn't be a "flagrant
> > overposter" in the sense the 35-post limit was
> > designed to curb.
> 
> Of course not--he's special.

Wrong once more. *Nobody* would be a "flagrant
overposter" at 50 per week in the sense the
35-post limit was designed to curb.

> > With the exception of Rick, those who busy themselves
> > with counting other people's posts and announcing when
> > when they've reached their limit are just being
> > intentionally obnoxious, throwing their weight around
> > and using the limit to put down and shut up people
> > they don't like.
> 
> Physician, heal thyself.

Nope, wrong *again*. I don't keep track of other
people's posts. I don't care whether they go over
the limit.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
Jim's bright and cheery sense of humor, along with his  ability  
> to laugh at his own foibles, comes shining through with every post.
> 
> Sal
>
as a gentle suggestion, you may want to consider your own dour and 
overcritical demeanor as expressed here, before taking exception with 
mine--

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Nov 10, 2007, at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote:


Nope, wrong, Sal. Read what he wrote again: "The
ORIGINAL GUIDELINE was put in place to curb flagrant
overposters" (my emphasis). The original posting
limit was *not* put in place to curb Jim; he was
*not* considered one of the "flagrant overposters"
pre-guideline.


Um, Judy, there was no overposting, "pre-guideline," by definition.   
In order to overpost, there has to be some known boundary one's crossed.




And even if he were to make 50 posts
per week now, he still wouldn't be a "flagrant
overposter" in the sense the 35-post limit was
designed to curb.


Of course not--he's special.



With the exception of Rick, those who busy themselves
with counting other people's posts and announcing when
when they've reached their limit are just being
intentionally obnoxious, throwing their weight around
and using the limit to put down and shut up people
they don't like.


Physician, heal thyself.


Rick, or an appointed deputy, ought to be the only
person to keep track of posts and issue warnings. If
he isn't doing it to the satisfaction of the obsessive
counters of other people's posts, they can complain to
him privately. Otherwise, tough beans.


I'll speak to Rick privately about his deputizing program. :)



  And giving

the impression you would gladly do it every week because
you're just that special.


No, this is Barry-dittohead bullshit. Some of us just
realize what the original point of the limit was. (Well,
maybe that does make us "special," come to think of it,
or at least a bit more savvy than the obsessives.)
*Nobody* needs to be compulsive about keeping exactly
to the 35-post limit, IMHO. (And in Jim's HO too, I'll
bet.)

Oh, and by the way, this was *not* a request
by Jim for somebody else to count his posts:

"FYI-- I just verified that the Yahoo advanced search isn't very
accurate-- I hand-counted my posts from the beginning of Sept.8th
until now and the total is 39, not including this one. However, if I
use the Yahoo advanced search, I get a total of 34, not including
this one.

"So hand counts seem to be the only way to be accurate, for those
not receiving emails on FFL. Or whoever keeps tallies can please
send an email to Rick. In any case, see you next week.:-)"

This was an amused little dig at the obsessive
post-counters.


Yes, Jim's bright and cheery sense of humor, along with his  ability  
to laugh at his own foibles, comes shining through with every post.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:
> 
> > As others have said, the original guideline was put in place to 
curb
> > flagrant over posters.
> > 
> > Of which you have been one on at least several occasions, 
posting  
> > without end until someone calls you on it, like today.
> 
> Nope, wrong, Sal. Read what he wrote again: "The
> ORIGINAL GUIDELINE was put in place to curb flagrant
> overposters" (my emphasis). The original posting
> limit was *not* put in place to curb Jim; he was
> *not* considered one of the "flagrant overposters"
> pre-guideline. And even if he were to make 50 posts
> per week now, he still wouldn't be a "flagrant
> overposter" in the sense the 35-post limit was
> designed to curb.
> 
> With the exception of Rick, those who busy themselves
> with counting other people's posts and announcing when
> when they've reached their limit are just being
> intentionally obnoxious, throwing their weight around
> and using the limit to put down and shut up people
> they don't like.
> 
> Rick, or an appointed deputy, ought to be the only
> person to keep track of posts and issue warnings. If
> he isn't doing it to the satisfaction of the obsessive
> counters of other people's posts, they can complain to
> him privately. Otherwise, tough beans.
> 
>   And giving  
> > the impression you would gladly do it every week because
> > you're just that special.
> 
> No, this is Barry-dittohead bullshit. Some of us just
> realize what the original point of the limit was. (Well,
> maybe that does make us "special," come to think of it,
> or at least a bit more savvy than the obsessives.)
> *Nobody* needs to be compulsive about keeping exactly
> to the 35-post limit, IMHO. (And in Jim's HO too, I'll
> bet.)
> 
> Oh, and by the way, this was *not* a request
> by Jim for somebody else to count his posts:
> 
> "FYI-- I just verified that the Yahoo advanced search isn't very
> accurate-- I hand-counted my posts from the beginning of Sept.8th
> until now and the total is 39, not including this one. However, if 
I
> use the Yahoo advanced search, I get a total of 34, not including
> this one.
> 
> "So hand counts seem to be the only way to be accurate, for those 
> not receiving emails on FFL. Or whoever keeps tallies can please
> send an email to Rick. In any case, see you next week.:-)"
> 
> This was an amused little dig at the obsessive
> post-counters.
>
Thanks Judy-- you can cut through to the core far more efficiently 
and consistently than I am able to do. I do agree that the 
obsessives here do use the 35 post guideline inappropriately as a 
venting mechanism.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In terms of 
> "enlightened behavior," you haven't even learned 
> how to crawl yet, dude, 

And I hope I *never* *ever* learn "enlightened behavior". That to me 
seems a far darker and more hopeless prison than even blithe ignorance.

and yet you expect us to 
> buy your claims. Get real.
>
Who's us? I have never had that expectation, or expressed it, though 
you continue to insist that I do. Is it because *you* want those on 
FFL to buy *your* claims? I think so. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:

> As others have said, the original guideline was put in place to curb
> flagrant over posters.
> 
> Of which you have been one on at least several occasions, posting  
> without end until someone calls you on it, like today.

Nope, wrong, Sal. Read what he wrote again: "The
ORIGINAL GUIDELINE was put in place to curb flagrant
overposters" (my emphasis). The original posting
limit was *not* put in place to curb Jim; he was
*not* considered one of the "flagrant overposters"
pre-guideline. And even if he were to make 50 posts
per week now, he still wouldn't be a "flagrant
overposter" in the sense the 35-post limit was
designed to curb.

With the exception of Rick, those who busy themselves
with counting other people's posts and announcing when
when they've reached their limit are just being
intentionally obnoxious, throwing their weight around
and using the limit to put down and shut up people
they don't like.

Rick, or an appointed deputy, ought to be the only
person to keep track of posts and issue warnings. If
he isn't doing it to the satisfaction of the obsessive
counters of other people's posts, they can complain to
him privately. Otherwise, tough beans.

  And giving  
> the impression you would gladly do it every week because
> you're just that special.

No, this is Barry-dittohead bullshit. Some of us just
realize what the original point of the limit was. (Well,
maybe that does make us "special," come to think of it,
or at least a bit more savvy than the obsessives.)
*Nobody* needs to be compulsive about keeping exactly
to the 35-post limit, IMHO. (And in Jim's HO too, I'll
bet.)

Oh, and by the way, this was *not* a request
by Jim for somebody else to count his posts:

"FYI-- I just verified that the Yahoo advanced search isn't very
accurate-- I hand-counted my posts from the beginning of Sept.8th
until now and the total is 39, not including this one. However, if I
use the Yahoo advanced search, I get a total of 34, not including
this one.

"So hand counts seem to be the only way to be accurate, for those 
not receiving emails on FFL. Or whoever keeps tallies can please
send an email to Rick. In any case, see you next week.:-)"

This was an amused little dig at the obsessive
post-counters.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
wrote:

> > As others have said, the original guideline was put in place to 
> > curb flagrant over posters. I am not in that category, and have 
> > not been. If I go over a few, it isn't a big deal. 
> 
> Here, in two short paragraphs, is why those of us
> who don't buy a word of Jim's claim of enlightenment
> think the way we do. First, he feels the need to 
> "defend himself," while claiming there is no "me"
> to be defended. Second, he doesn't give a shit about
> anyone here, not even enough to track his posts and
> keep from going over the agreed-upon limits. The only
> thing that matters is what *he* feels like doing.

Notice that Barry avoids addressing the issue
Jim raises and instead goes right for the
putdown.

That's because Barry gets panicky at any
perceived threat to his own obsession with the
posting limit and must compulsively defend it
at all costs by attempting to discredit anyone
who *isn't* obsessed by it.

> If that's enlightenment, I suspect a few here will
> join me in saying, "We don't want it."
> 
> > I try to track the number of my posts and will 
> > continue to do so. 
> 
> Bullshit, on the same level as your claim of enlight-
> enment. You have never shown any indication that you
> care at all about how much you post,

Obviously untrue.

 and whenever
> Rick or anyone else has reminded you that you are
> over the limit, you invariably reply several more
> times after that. Every fuckin' time.

Also untrue.

> Again, if that's enlightenment, you can have it.
> 
> > We all recognize the Advanced Search function doesn't 
> > work.
> 
> And yet, just like some others here, you're more than
> willing to ignore that and point to the Search engine
> as some kind of authority

First, Yahoo Advanced Search has been quite
accurate in the past; it's only recently that
it seems to have broken down.

Second, since it's been recognized that it 
isn't working all that well, nobody has
claimed it to be authoritative versus a hand
count.

 if it allows you to get in a 
> few more "Notice me...I'm special" posts.

The "Notice me...I'm special" posts are those in
which Barry gets hysterical about posting limits.

*Nobody* here is more into "Notice me...I'm
special" than Barry, whether his posts are 
pointing out the transgressions of posting limits
by others, or his own purported superiority in
that and any other area he chooses to address.

Such as, for instance:
 
> The measure of enlightenment is *not* in claiming it.
> Talking the talk doesn't mean diddleysquat; it's
> only in how well one walks the walk. In terms of 
> "enlightened behavior," you haven't even learned 
> how to crawl yet, dude, and yet you expect us to 
> buy your claims. Get real.

Barry, of course, is the authority on what does
and does not constitute "enlightened behavior."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > I hereby decree: "No borrowing, lending, selling, or otherwise 
> > transferring unused posts." 
> 
> No problem- on the other hand, using this guideline to dump on 
> me as Sal enjoys doing is inappropriate. When she does it, she 
> can expect a reply from me. 
> 
> As others have said, the original guideline was put in place to 
> curb flagrant over posters. I am not in that category, and have 
> not been. If I go over a few, it isn't a big deal. 

Here, in two short paragraphs, is why those of us
who don't buy a word of Jim's claim of enlightenment
think the way we do. First, he feels the need to 
"defend himself," while claiming there is no "me"
to be defended. Second, he doesn't give a shit about
anyone here, not even enough to track his posts and
keep from going over the agreed-upon limits. The only
thing that matters is what *he* feels like doing.

If that's enlightenment, I suspect a few here will
join me in saying, "We don't want it."

> I try to track the number of my posts and will 
> continue to do so. 

Bullshit, on the same level as your claim of enlight-
enment. You have never shown any indication that you
care at all about how much you post, and whenever
Rick or anyone else has reminded you that you are
over the limit, you invariably reply several more
times after that. Every fuckin' time. 

Again, if that's enlightenment, you can have it.

> We all recognize the Advanced Search function doesn't 
> work.

And yet, just like some others here, you're more than
willing to ignore that and point to the Search engine
as some kind of authority if it allows you to get in a 
few more "Notice me...I'm special" posts.

The measure of enlightenment is *not* in claiming it.
Talking the talk doesn't mean diddleysquat; it's
only in how well one walks the walk. In terms of 
"enlightened behavior," you haven't even learned 
how to crawl yet, dude, and yet you expect us to 
buy your claims. Get real.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> -
> Thanks - getting drunk, perhaps being an alcoholic; where do you 
draw 
> the line, finally admitting that something is not OK?:

For me, something is "not OK" *in myself* when I realize it is an 
addiction trying to distract me from the emptiful "void" or from some 
pain I have not yet attended to. As soon as I can bring myself to 
fully attend to it, I do, and it dissolves as the illusion it always 
actually was. 

This process is not as easy as it may sound. It takes a great deal of 
courage to attend to those horrific parts of ourselves we'd rather 
project onto (and condemn self-righteously) in someone else. In 
truth, as I see it, there *is* no one else. The buck stops here. If I 
abdicate my responsibility for upholding the whole thing, I place 
myself in a disempowered victim role, and the price I pay for 
projection isn't worth the small pleasure of judgement. 

(This is not to say I don't *heartily* enjoy the role of creature as 
well as creator; if anything, being a creature is even better than 
being a creator, for being a creator is one's ordinary self, and 
being an inifinitesimal creature one can fully appreciate the 
infinitely "immense" or "divine" qualities of oneself as creator. 
However, I never fully knew that until I allowed myself to be the 
creator, to uphold all of creation as myself.)

As for what appears to be others, or those who hold themselves to be 
different from me, I do my best to work as quickly as possible back 
to unconditional love, realizing with gratitude they are showing me 
my own demons. Holding grudges, holding judgements, etc., only hurts 
my own physiology, causing blocks to my energy-flow and creating 
dis-ease and eventually disease. Again, I must emphasize that this 
process this *has no bearing* on what my actual behavior (which is 
automatic anyhow) toward them in realtime may or may not be. It does 
not mean if I see someone committing a "wrong" that I won't act to 
stop it. Nor does it guarantee that I will. My actions do not always 
correspond with what conventional morality would dictate. 

> and realize there's Spiritual work to do, instead of
> > spending their lives watching the NFL and drinking beer?
> 
> That too can be and actually is "spiritual" work :-) Sometimes a
> lifetime or two "off" getting drunk is just what the doctor ordered!
> 
> How about if a person is a serial rapist. Would the doctor order 
> that?  Or, a methamphetamine salesman?

If a person is a serial rapist or a methamphetamine salesman, then 
evidently the doctor *has* ordered that up, to this point anyway. 

This is completely incomprehensible to the small self, I know. I 
would have reacted to the above statement with righteous outrage 
before I "died."

One doesn't get this until one learns the full-fillment of surrender 
to the perfection that IS. It is not and will never be fully 
comprehended by the rational mind, or the intellect, because the 
intellect's function is dualistic and distinguishing: hence, cruder 
and more relative than the Self appreciating and surrendering into 
the Self, which is what we're talking about here.
 
> Your POV seems to suggest that everything is OK. Aren't things that 
> are not OK also the Light you talk about? That being case, it seems 
> more logical to disapprove of a career of being a serial rapist or 
a 
> drug pusher.

Yes, probably so, but we're not talking about logic here. Logic is 
essentually dualist; it cannot comprehend the paradox of Being. Love 
it all (and be it all) or truly love none of it (and think oneself 
apart), that's about as close as my logic can come to describing the 
immensity and our logical tendencies towards rejection of That and 
the subsequent ignorance we cascade into :-)


:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[tertonzeno]

-
Thanks - getting drunk, perhaps being an alcoholic; where do you draw 
the line, finally admitting that something is not OK?:

and realize there's Spiritual work to do, instead of
> spending their lives watching the NFL and drinking beer?

That too can be and actually is "spiritual" work :-) Sometimes a
lifetime or two "off" getting drunk is just what the doctor ordered!

How about if a person is a serial rapist. Would the doctor order 
that?  Or, a methamphetamine salesman?

Your POV seems to suggest that everything is OK. Aren't things that 
are not OK also the Light you talk about? That being case, it seems 
more logical to disapprove of a career of being a serial rapist or a 
drug pusher.





-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- Thanks, can you see dead people?  
> 
> It's pretty easy for most to do so, I think; all we have to do is 
let 
> go (at least temporarily) of the belief in the limiting power of 
> spacetime, and trust the subtle body-messages we get. May not be 
sight; 
> may be any sense or "knowing."
> 
> I did a lot of work (well, a lot of work by *my* standards, which 
have 
> always been pretty slack) with the dead shortly 
after "waking/dying." 
> At that time, I was also doing a lot of "channeling" of the 
Love/Bliss 
> of my "higher selves" and on some subtle planes our apartment had a 
> huge column of light standing in it, which seemed to attract quite 
a 
> few confused souls from a number of different time periods. 
> 
> The work mostly consisted of giving them loving attention, telling 
them 
> they were healed and forgiven, one with their Light, and showing 
them 
> where the Light is. As they move into it there is often a palpable 
> lightening of the atmosphere, an infusion of sparkle, like ginger-
ale. 
> I also used to communicate with them for the bereaved for some 
years 
> afterwards. 
> 
> I can't say that work has presented itself to me much at all in the 
> last decade or so.
> 
> If so, what's the status of most 
> > of themsay, ordinary people. 
> 
> I can't really say I have never met an ordinary person, or an 
> extraordinary one! (Plus, every person is actually a hierarchical 
group-
> mind of countless billions of selves, and every person is a 
particle 
> of "Us".) 
> 
> (And as they are all particles of "Us," when we give them our 
> attention, they are immediately bathed in that Light, and usually 
> realize their innate and ecstatic non-existence as "Us".)
> 
> How long does it take them to get 
> > their bearings 
> 
> That really varies. Many are actually "asleep" for several days 
> after "death", and many more are "in hospital" for some time after 
> that. Others go directly into the Light/Bliss/Love, or 
> whatever "mansion" they most desire/need. Some go through *gut-
> wrenching, heart-breaking* remorse immediately after dying, 
sometimes 
> for what seem to me to be relatively minor refractions. Others get 
> swept up immediately into a giant angel. And so on...
> 
> and realize there's Spiritual work to do, instead of 
> > spending their lives watching the NFL and drinking beer?  
> 
> That too can be and actually is "spiritual" work :-) Sometimes a 
> lifetime or two "off" getting drunk is just what the doctor ordered!
> 
> Or, do they 
> > not realize there's a Spiritual life and spend their time 
planning 
> for 
> > the next round of insanity?
> 
> No matter what their conscious attitudes, "We" are enjoying them, 
> learning from them, growing from them, and so their lives are all 
> equally "spiritual" to "Us." If they wish to join "Us" in their 
> appreciation of themselves, that's good too -- their choice! 
> 
> And again, from the simplest, truest POV I am aware of in this 
moment, 
> we are actually only describing particles of the "Us", here and now.
> 
> Many thanks matrix --- fun questions!
> 
> *L*L*L*
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Thanks, can you see dead people?  

It's pretty easy for most to do so, I think; all we have to do is let 
go (at least temporarily) of the belief in the limiting power of 
spacetime, and trust the subtle body-messages we get. May not be sight; 
may be any sense or "knowing."

I did a lot of work (well, a lot of work by *my* standards, which have 
always been pretty slack) with the dead shortly after "waking/dying." 
At that time, I was also doing a lot of "channeling" of the Love/Bliss 
of my "higher selves" and on some subtle planes our apartment had a 
huge column of light standing in it, which seemed to attract quite a 
few confused souls from a number of different time periods. 

The work mostly consisted of giving them loving attention, telling them 
they were healed and forgiven, one with their Light, and showing them 
where the Light is. As they move into it there is often a palpable 
lightening of the atmosphere, an infusion of sparkle, like ginger-ale. 
I also used to communicate with them for the bereaved for some years 
afterwards. 

I can't say that work has presented itself to me much at all in the 
last decade or so.

If so, what's the status of most 
> of themsay, ordinary people. 

I can't really say I have never met an ordinary person, or an 
extraordinary one! (Plus, every person is actually a hierarchical group-
mind of countless billions of selves, and every person is a particle 
of "Us".) 

(And as they are all particles of "Us," when we give them our 
attention, they are immediately bathed in that Light, and usually 
realize their innate and ecstatic non-existence as "Us".)

How long does it take them to get 
> their bearings 

That really varies. Many are actually "asleep" for several days 
after "death", and many more are "in hospital" for some time after 
that. Others go directly into the Light/Bliss/Love, or 
whatever "mansion" they most desire/need. Some go through *gut-
wrenching, heart-breaking* remorse immediately after dying, sometimes 
for what seem to me to be relatively minor refractions. Others get 
swept up immediately into a giant angel. And so on...

and realize there's Spiritual work to do, instead of 
> spending their lives watching the NFL and drinking beer?  

That too can be and actually is "spiritual" work :-) Sometimes a 
lifetime or two "off" getting drunk is just what the doctor ordered!

Or, do they 
> not realize there's a Spiritual life and spend their time planning 
for 
> the next round of insanity?

No matter what their conscious attitudes, "We" are enjoying them, 
learning from them, growing from them, and so their lives are all 
equally "spiritual" to "Us." If they wish to join "Us" in their 
appreciation of themselves, that's good too -- their choice! 

And again, from the simplest, truest POV I am aware of in this moment, 
we are actually only describing particles of the "Us", here and now.

Many thanks matrix --- fun questions!

*L*L*L*

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:


I wouldn't even bother with this if you hadn't made it clear that

you

couldn't be bothered with counting, and basically asked someone

else

to do it.  So I obliged.


Please quote when I said this back to me. You are making this up.
Why am I not surprised?


Post where you made the request:

FYI-- I just verified that the Yahoo advanced search isn't very
accurate-- I hand-counted my posts from the beginning of Sept.8th
until now and the total is 39, not including this one. However, if I
use the Yahoo advanced search, I get a total of 34, not including
this one.

So hand counts seem to be the only way to be accurate, for those not
receiving emails on FFL. Or whoever keeps tallies can please send an
email to Rick. In any case, see you next week.:-)

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:



I wouldn't even bother with this if you hadn't made it clear that

you

couldn't be bothered with counting, and basically asked someone

else

to do it.  So I obliged.


Please quote when I said this back to me. You are making this up.
Why am I not surprised?


Baloney, Jim.  You laughed and said you couldn't be bothered, or  
something to that effect, and then said if someone else wanted to  
count you would abide by that, or something to that effect as well.   
Look it up yourself, I'm not going to waste my time.


And as far as "dumping" on you goes, here is my post which triggered  
your rather strong reaction:


35, Jim.  Hasta la vista until Saturday.

And then this, after you told me you were essentially going to rip  
off posts, sans permission:


No, Jim, it's not, you don't have my permission, you're just  
stealing.  And since it's not the end of the week, you don't know if  
I'm going to use them or not, making it unethical as well.  Why am I  
not surprised?



As others have said, the original guideline was put in place to curb
flagrant over posters.

Of which you have been one on at least several occasions, posting  
without end until someone calls you on it, like today.  And giving  
the impression you would gladly do it every week because you're just  
that special.


41 for this week, Jim.  Ciao.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[matrixmonitor]

--- Thanks, can you see dead people?  If so, what's the status of most 
of themsay, ordinary people. How long does it take them to get 
their bearings and realize there's Spiritual work to do, instead of 
spending their lives watching the NFL and drinking beer?  Or, do they 
not realize there's a Spiritual life and spend their time planning for 
the next round of insanity?


In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --Well done, Rory...so what's the next step?
> 
> Thank you, matrix, but it's not as if I really have anything to do 
with 
> it! :-)
> 
> At this moment, it appears to simply be more of the same -- healing 
and 
> integrating (or dissolving), healing and integrating (or dissolving), 
> becoming more and more less and less, if that makes any sense.
> 
> No-i-tu Love = Evolution
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Well done, Rory...so what's the next step?

Thank you, matrix, but it's not as if I really have anything to do with 
it! :-)

At this moment, it appears to simply be more of the same -- healing and 
integrating (or dissolving), healing and integrating (or dissolving), 
becoming more and more less and less, if that makes any sense.

No-i-tu Love = Evolution

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2007, at 7:18 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:
> 
> > PS Sal, I borrowed one of your posts for this and my previous 
comment.
> > You always have about 30 of 'em lying around anyway unused each 
week,
> > and so I appreciate in advance your spirit of generosity. In 
fact,
> > I'll make a deal with you; you continue to remind me when I've 
reached
> > my exact limit of posts-- I'm cool with that-- and I'll use a 
few of
> > your perennially unused posts if need be. OK? I'll just assume 
it is.
> 
> No, Jim, it's not, you don't have my permission, you're just  
> stealing.  And since it's not the end of the week, you don't know 
if  
> I'm going to use them or not, making it unethical as well.  Why am 
I  
> not surprised?

You are not surprised because you have already formed a negative 
opinion of me. Has nothing to do with me, though.

> 
> I wouldn't even bother with this if you hadn't made it clear that 
you  
> couldn't be bothered with counting, and basically asked someone 
else  
> to do it.  So I obliged.

Please quote when I said this back to me. You are making this up. 
Why am I not surprised?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of jim_flanegin
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:19 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
> 
>  
> 
> PS Sal, I borrowed one of your posts for this and my previous 
comment. 
> You always have about 30 of 'em lying around anyway unused each 
week, 
> and so I appreciate in advance your spirit of generosity. In fact, 
> I'll make a deal with you; you continue to remind me when I've 
reached 
> my exact limit of posts-- I'm cool with that-- and I'll use a few 
of 
> your perennially unused posts if need be. OK? I'll just assume it 
is. 
> Thanks!
> 
> No Jim. Not OK. By that logic, there would be no posting limits. 
Many people
> post only a few a week. Should those who want to ignore the 
posting limit
> "borrow" theirs, with their tacit "permission?" 
> 
> I hereby decree: "No borrowing, lending, selling, or otherwise 
transferring
> unused posts." 
> 
No problem- on the other hand, using this guideline to dump on me as 
Sal enjoys doing is inappropriate. When she does it, she can expect 
a reply from me. 

As others have said, the original guideline was put in place to curb 
flagrant over posters. I am not in that category, and have not been. 
If I go over a few, it isn't a big deal. I try to track the number 
of my posts and will continue to do so. We all recognize the 
Advanced Search function doesn't work. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[matrixmonitor]

--Well done, Rory...so what's the next step?


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> >  wrote:
> 
> 
> > > "I am you, you are me.  We're one happy fa-mi-ly.  With a great 
big 
> > > hug and kiss from me to you, won't you say you love me too." 
> > (Barney 
> > > Song)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff"  wrote:
> 
> > The indescribable externalizing into love-radiance-ecstacy *is* 
how 
> > it generally looks now. That is not to say I have not been 
working on 
> > other ego-issues, as I've also mentioned in another recent post. 
As 
> > far as I can tell, the work never ends :-)
> 
> And I have been describing the understanding of the unconditioned I 
> with the simultaneity of spacetime as my projected bodymind -- of 
the 
> necessary balance in bind-identifying with none while upholding 
all -- 
> as clearly as I can. I apologize if it sounds smarmy or naive or 
> sentimentally Barneyesque to you; that's certainly not the 
> predominating flavor on this end :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
R: IMO and IME, hell *is* the hotline to wisdom

> > :-)

nablusoss1008 wrote:  If this world is hell I will agree... ;-)

R: What do *you* mean by "this world"?

(I am speaking of all the "worlds" present in our bodymind, here and 
now.)

There is no escaping the facing of one's demons if one is to gain 
freedom, as far as I can see :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
>  wrote:


> > "I am you, you are me.  We're one happy fa-mi-ly.  With a great big 
> > hug and kiss from me to you, won't you say you love me too." 
> (Barney 
> > Song)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The indescribable externalizing into love-radiance-ecstacy *is* how 
> it generally looks now. That is not to say I have not been working on 
> other ego-issues, as I've also mentioned in another recent post. As 
> far as I can tell, the work never ends :-)

And I have been describing the understanding of the unconditioned I 
with the simultaneity of spacetime as my projected bodymind -- of the 
necessary balance in bind-identifying with none while upholding all -- 
as clearly as I can. I apologize if it sounds smarmy or naive or 
sentimentally Barneyesque to you; that's certainly not the 
predominating flavor on this end :-) 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Edg:
> If you want to be godlike, you have to master the demonic virtues.
> 
> Lurk:
> Tell me something I don't know.
>  
> How bout Rory saying, "Yea, I was Herman G. and I needed that 
> lifetime to round out some life experience I was lacking so I could 
> attain Brahman C. in this lifetime.  No biggy.  Noble sacrifice on 
> my part, but please hold off on the applause"  

I would say that if I felt it were true.

>OR,  maybe he might 
> say, "You know, that was a rather childish assertion on my part, 
but 
> I guess that was where my "head" was, at that point.  Looking at it 
> now, I guess it was a little silly"  Instead, what do we get.  See 
> below.

Sorry, but that's not the truth either. It isn't where my head is at 
now, but I respect where it was then. Perhaps you missed my later 
post addressing some of those emotions etc.

> "I am you, you are me.  We're one happy fa-mi-ly.  With a great big 
> hug and kiss from me to you, won't you say you love me too." 
(Barney 
> Song)

The indescribable externalizing into love-radiance-ecstacy *is* how 
it generally looks now. That is not to say I have not been working on 
other ego-issues, as I've also mentioned in another recent post. As 
far as I can tell, the work never ends :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[matrixmonitor]

--The 3-rd Reich "equivalent" to being a Raja: being anointed a 
Knight of the Iron Cross, of which there were 5 grades.  Herman G. is 
probably on the list.  In this incarnation he can become a Raja by 
wiring in the one Mil; thus (perhaps) being the only person ever to 
be a Knight of the Iron Cross AND a Raja!

at http://www.tinyurl.com/2k54qx

To qualify for the Knight's Cross, a soldier had to have held the 
1939 Iron Cross First Class already, though the Iron Cross I Class 
was awarded concurrently with the Knight's Cross in rare cases. Unit 
commanders could also be awarded the medal for exemplary conduct by 
the unit as a whole. Also, U-boat commanders could qualify for 
sinking 100,000 tons of shipping, and Luftwaffe pilots could qualify 
for accumulating 20 "points" [with one point being awarded for 
shooting down a single-engine plane, two points for a twin-engine 
plane,and three for a four-engine plane, with all points being 
doubled at night]. It was issued from 1939-45, with the requirements 
being gradually raised as the war went on.






- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Edg:
> If you want to be godlike, you have to master the demonic virtues.
> 
> Lurk:
> Tell me something I don't know.
>  
> How bout Rory saying, "Yea, I was Herman G. and I needed that 
> lifetime to round out some life experience I was lacking so I could 
> attain Brahman C. in this lifetime.  No biggy.  Noble sacrifice on 
> my part, but please hold off on the applause"  OR,  maybe he might 
> say, "You know, that was a rather childish assertion on my part, 
but 
> I guess that was where my "head" was, at that point.  Looking at it 
> now, I guess it was a little silly"  Instead, what do we get.  See 
> below.
>  
> "I am you, you are me.  We're one happy fa-mi-ly.  With a great big 
> hug and kiss from me to you, won't you say you love me too." 
(Barney 
> Song) 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Rory:
> > > I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone 
> > > else for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman 
> Goering 
> > > is a part of me, as is everything and everyone else. This feels 
> > > indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
> > > radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my 
attention 
> > >  on it; thanks for asking :-)
> > > 
> > > Lurk:
> > > Spinmeister
> > > 
> > > Jim F.
> > > Wouldn't it only be spin if it provided Rory some sort of one-
> sided 
> > > advantage to do so? That is my understanding of spin, or bias. 
> If 
> > > you analyze his writing, you'll find that there is no spin, 
that 
> he 
> > > in fact experiences the world accurately as a microcosm and 
> > > macrocosm of himself. He supports both the good and bad in 
> > > himself; "the world", without favoring either for a predictive 
> > > outcome.
> > > 
> > > Lurk:
> > > Dizzy, I'm so dizzy. Like a whirlpool it never ends.  And it's 
> you 
> > > Jim making it spin.  You're making me dizzy. :-)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[lurkernomore20002000]

Edg:
If you want to be godlike, you have to master the demonic virtues.

Lurk:
Tell me something I don't know.
 
How bout Rory saying, "Yea, I was Herman G. and I needed that 
lifetime to round out some life experience I was lacking so I could 
attain Brahman C. in this lifetime.  No biggy.  Noble sacrifice on 
my part, but please hold off on the applause"  OR,  maybe he might 
say, "You know, that was a rather childish assertion on my part, but 
I guess that was where my "head" was, at that point.  Looking at it 
now, I guess it was a little silly"  Instead, what do we get.  See 
below.
 
"I am you, you are me.  We're one happy fa-mi-ly.  With a great big 
hug and kiss from me to you, won't you say you love me too." (Barney 
Song) 


> >
> > Rory:
> > I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone 
> > else for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman 
Goering 
> > is a part of me, as is everything and everyone else. This feels 
> > indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
> > radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention 
> >  on it; thanks for asking :-)
> > 
> > Lurk:
> > Spinmeister
> > 
> > Jim F.
> > Wouldn't it only be spin if it provided Rory some sort of one-
sided 
> > advantage to do so? That is my understanding of spin, or bias. 
If 
> > you analyze his writing, you'll find that there is no spin, that 
he 
> > in fact experiences the world accurately as a microcosm and 
> > macrocosm of himself. He supports both the good and bad in 
> > himself; "the world", without favoring either for a predictive 
> > outcome.
> > 
> > Lurk:
> > Dizzy, I'm so dizzy. Like a whirlpool it never ends.  And it's 
you 
> > Jim making it spin.  You're making me dizzy. :-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Duveyoung]

If you want to be godlike, you have to master the demonic virtues.

Destructiveness is a virtue of Shiva, right?  Well, if one is at ritam
level and wants to maintain balance, the demonic energies are just the
ticket to keep one from identifying with any of the gods and becoming
lost in the heavenly egoic traps.

All is inside yer brains, Bub -- gotta embrace the ugly to make the
beauty pop -- just get out of picking sides and witness.

The "Hitler dynamic" -- whatever that would be -- resides in all of
us.  Who hasn't wanted to wipe out every last ant in a long line from
your floorboard to your sugar bowl?  Gas 'em, whatever it takes, right?  

It takes a micro-bit of hitlerean Shiva power to pull that off. 
Without the evil within, there can be no recognition of the true, the
loving, the sacred.

An enlightened mind skates along that dividing line between the two
world of "inner forces."  Arjuna, right?

To see these forces afoot with an absolutely quiet mind, what's not to
love?

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rory:
> I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone 
> else for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering 
> is a part of me, as is everything and everyone else. This feels 
> indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
> radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention 
>  on it; thanks for asking :-)
> 
> Lurk:
> Spinmeister
> 
> Jim F.
> Wouldn't it only be spin if it provided Rory some sort of one-sided 
> advantage to do so? That is my understanding of spin, or bias. If 
> you analyze his writing, you'll find that there is no spin, that he 
> in fact experiences the world accurately as a microcosm and 
> macrocosm of himself. He supports both the good and bad in 
> himself; "the world", without favoring either for a predictive 
> outcome.
> 
> Lurk:
> Dizzy, I'm so dizzy. Like a whirlpool it never ends.  And it's you 
> Jim making it spin.  You're making me dizzy. :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[lurkernomore20002000]

Rory:
I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone 
else for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering 
is a part of me, as is everything and everyone else. This feels 
indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention 
 on it; thanks for asking :-)

Lurk:
Spinmeister

Jim F.
Wouldn't it only be spin if it provided Rory some sort of one-sided 
advantage to do so? That is my understanding of spin, or bias. If 
you analyze his writing, you'll find that there is no spin, that he 
in fact experiences the world accurately as a microcosm and 
macrocosm of himself. He supports both the good and bad in 
himself; "the world", without favoring either for a predictive 
outcome.

Lurk:
Dizzy, I'm so dizzy. Like a whirlpool it never ends.  And it's you 
Jim making it spin.  You're making me dizzy. :-)
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of jim_flanegin
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:19 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

 

PS Sal, I borrowed one of your posts for this and my previous comment. 
You always have about 30 of 'em lying around anyway unused each week, 
and so I appreciate in advance your spirit of generosity. In fact, 
I'll make a deal with you; you continue to remind me when I've reached 
my exact limit of posts-- I'm cool with that-- and I'll use a few of 
your perennially unused posts if need be. OK? I'll just assume it is. 
Thanks!

No Jim. Not OK. By that logic, there would be no posting limits. Many people
post only a few a week. Should those who want to ignore the posting limit
“borrow” theirs, with their tacit “permission?” 

I hereby decree: “No borrowing, lending, selling, or otherwise transferring
unused posts.” 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1119 - Release Date: 11/8/2007
5:55 PM
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Nov 8, 2007, at 7:18 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:


PS Sal, I borrowed one of your posts for this and my previous comment.
You always have about 30 of 'em lying around anyway unused each week,
and so I appreciate in advance your spirit of generosity. In fact,
I'll make a deal with you; you continue to remind me when I've reached
my exact limit of posts-- I'm cool with that-- and I'll use a few of
your perennially unused posts if need be. OK? I'll just assume it is.


No, Jim, it's not, you don't have my permission, you're just  
stealing.  And since it's not the end of the week, you don't know if  
I'm going to use them or not, making it unethical as well.  Why am I  
not surprised?


I wouldn't even bother with this if you hadn't made it clear that you  
couldn't be bothered with counting, and basically asked someone else  
to do it.  So I obliged.



Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

 "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Wouldn't it only be spin if it provided Rory some sort of one-sided 
> advantage to do so? That is my understanding of spin, or bias. If 
> you analyze his writing, you'll find that there is no spin, that he 
> in fact experiences the world accurately as a microcosm and 
> macrocosm of himself. He supports both the good and bad in 
> himself; "the world", without favoring either for a predictive 
> outcome.

Perhaps he meant it was spin in that I didn't directly answer the 
question of what if felt like at the time the memories came up 
to "be" Herman Goering -- as opposed to how it feels now, which is 
what I answered.

I believe I covered most of those emotions pretty thoroughly in the 
website. IIRC they included relentless cheerfulness, greed and 
poverty-consciousness, intense anger, feeling utterly betrayed for 
following a false (and crazy) but highly charismatic Messiah, feeling 
the exhausting brunt of contempt and scorn from head-to-head 
confrontations with (the woman who appeared to be the reincarnation 
of) "Rommel", love of (the woman who appeared to be) "Karin", and so 
on and so on. All extremely intense at the time, almost a dream now, 
25 years later. All of this arose in the year before "dying into the 
emptiful void" and were resolved in the 2-3 years following -- 
something like a purgatory, I guess. 

Practically nothing compared with the monstrously arrogant, know-it-
all, self-appointed-lord-of-the-universe, radiant Brahma-ego I have 
been eyeball-to-eyeball with and wrestling for the past two years, 
that's for sure :-)

*lol*




:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> >>In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" jflanegi@
> >>wrote:
> 
> >>It has been brought up before that all too often people 
>>attempting
> to view their past lives will conclude that they were >>someone 
famous.
> 
> Emptybill:
> 
> This generalization is an old but undeserved criticism because it 
is
> nothing but pure, unfounded speculation. Actual testimony from 
subjects
> participating in both individual and group sessions of past life 
recall
> is just the opposite of this statement and its claims.  Helen 
Wambach
> did research on about 1000 individuals and around 10,000 people in
> various group settings. The vast majority of these participants 
reported
> past lives as simple peasants or farmers, living in small villages 
or in
> the countryside with no formal education and little social 
influence
> within the cultural milieu of the given lifetime.
> 
>Dr. Helen Wambach (Ph.D.) was one of the earliest 
scientific
> researchers into past lives and reincaration. She was the author of
> Reliving Past Lives and Life Before Life (both published in 1978 by
> Bantam paperback books). The updated Reliving Past Lives: The 
Evidence
> Under Hypnosis  was published in 1984.
> 
> Initially motivated by a desire to debunk reincarnation, beginning 
in
> the mid-1960s, Helen Wambach conducted a 10-year survey of past-
life
> recalls under hypnosis among 1,088 subjects. She asked very 
specific
> questions about the time periods in which people lived and the 
clothing,
> footwear, utensils, money, housing, etc. which they used or came in
> contact with. Wambach concluded found peoples' recollections to be
> amazingly accurate and wrote that ''fantasy and genetic memory 
could not
> account for the patterns that emerged in the results. With the 
exception
> of 11 subjects, all descriptions of clothing, footwear and 
utensils were
> consistent with historical records.'' 
> 
> 
> By doing a scientific analysis on the past lives reported by her 
10,000
> plus volunteers she came up with some startling evidence in favor 
of
> reincarnation:
> 
> • 50.6 % of the past lives reported were male and 49.4 % were 
female
> — this is exactly in accordance with biological fact.
> 
> • The number of people reporting upper class or comfortable lives
> was in exactly the same proportion to the estimates of historians 
of the
> class distribution of the period.
> 
> • The recall by subjects of clothing, footwear, type of food and
> utensils used was better than that in popular history books. She 
found
> over and over again that her subjects knew better than most 
historians
> — when she went to obscure experts her subjects were invariably
> correct.
> 
> While the evidence from these "viewing" does not constitute any 
final
> proof of reincarnation, it does belie your "true 'cuz it must be"
> assertion.
>
I am OK with that. I haven't really looked into it much. I think the 
central question though is how useful is this type of thing in a 
quest for eternal freedom? Other than that, when I have read these 
accounts I find them entertaining.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rory:
> I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone 
else 
> for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering *is* 
a 
> part of me, as is everything and everyone else
> 
> *Spin*
>  
> Rory:
> This feels indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
> radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention 
on 
> it; thanks for asking :-)
> 
> *Meister*
> 
> *lurk*

Wouldn't it only be spin if it provided Rory some sort of one-sided 
advantage to do so? That is my understanding of spin, or bias. If 
you analyze his writing, you'll find that there is no spin, that he 
in fact experiences the world accurately as a microcosm and 
macrocosm of himself. He supports both the good and bad in 
himself; "the world", without favoring either for a predictive 
outcome.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[emptybill]

>>In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" jflanegi@
>>wrote:

>>It has been brought up before that all too often people >>attempting
to view their past lives will conclude that they were >>someone famous.

Emptybill:

This generalization is an old but undeserved criticism because it is
nothing but pure, unfounded speculation. Actual testimony from subjects
participating in both individual and group sessions of past life recall
is just the opposite of this statement and its claims.  Helen Wambach
did research on about 1000 individuals and around 10,000 people in
various group settings. The vast majority of these participants reported
past lives as simple peasants or farmers, living in small villages or in
the countryside with no formal education and little social influence
within the cultural milieu of the given lifetime.

   Dr. Helen Wambach (Ph.D.) was one of the earliest scientific
researchers into past lives and reincaration. She was the author of
Reliving Past Lives and Life Before Life (both published in 1978 by
Bantam paperback books). The updated Reliving Past Lives: The Evidence
Under Hypnosis  was published in 1984.

Initially motivated by a desire to debunk reincarnation, beginning in
the mid-1960s, Helen Wambach conducted a 10-year survey of past-life
recalls under hypnosis among 1,088 subjects. She asked very specific
questions about the time periods in which people lived and the clothing,
footwear, utensils, money, housing, etc. which they used or came in
contact with. Wambach concluded found peoples' recollections to be
amazingly accurate and wrote that ''fantasy and genetic memory could not
account for the patterns that emerged in the results. With the exception
of 11 subjects, all descriptions of clothing, footwear and utensils were
consistent with historical records.'' 


By doing a scientific analysis on the past lives reported by her 10,000
plus volunteers she came up with some startling evidence in favor of
reincarnation:

• 50.6 % of the past lives reported were male and 49.4 % were female
— this is exactly in accordance with biological fact.

• The number of people reporting upper class or comfortable lives
was in exactly the same proportion to the estimates of historians of the
class distribution of the period.

• The recall by subjects of clothing, footwear, type of food and
utensils used was better than that in popular history books. She found
over and over again that her subjects knew better than most historians
— when she went to obscure experts her subjects were invariably
correct.

While the evidence from these "viewing" does not constitute any final
proof of reincarnation, it does belie your "true 'cuz it must be"
assertion.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> *Spin*
>

> *Meister*
> 
> *lurk*

Actually, I think that was Goebbels

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[mathatbrahman]

--
Mainstay of the Wehrmacht:
http://www.military-collections.com/weapons.html



- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rory:
> I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone 
else 
> for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering *is* 
a 
> part of me, as is everything and everyone else
> 
> *Spin*
>  
> Rory:
> This feels indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
> radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention on 
> it; thanks for asking :-)
> 
> *Meister*
> 
> *lurk*
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[lurkernomore20002000]

Rory:
I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone else 
for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering *is* a 
part of me, as is everything and everyone else

*Spin*
 
Rory:
This feels indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention on 
it; thanks for asking :-)

*Meister*

*lurk*

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rory Goff"  > wrote:
> 
> > > IMO and IME, hell *is* the hotline to wisdom
>  
>  :-)
> 
>  "jim_flanegin"  wrote:
> 
> > yes, very much so-- "to hell and gone" is more than just an idle 
> > phrase
> 
> DAMN, that's brilliant!
> 
> :-)
>
Would that be like you expressing "the shun-shine of your love"?

PS Sal, I borrowed one of your posts for this and my previous comment. 
You always have about 30 of 'em lying around anyway unused each week, 
and so I appreciate in advance your spirit of generosity. In fact, 
I'll make a deal with you; you continue to remind me when I've reached 
my exact limit of posts-- I'm cool with that-- and I'll use a few of 
your perennially unused posts if need be. OK? I'll just assume it is. 
Thanks!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:22 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:
> 
> > you crack me up!
> 
> 35, Jim.  Hasta la vista until Saturday.
> 
> Sal
>
I was waiting for you to say that...sayonara, "mom"

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:22 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:


you crack me up!


35, Jim.  Hasta la vista until Saturday.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rory Goff"  > wrote:
> 
> > > IMO and IME, hell *is* the hotline to wisdom
>  
>  :-)
> 
>  "jim_flanegin"  wrote:
> 
> > yes, very much so-- "to hell and gone" is more than just an idle 
> > phrase
> 
> DAMN, that's brilliant!
> 
> :-)
>
you crack me up!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
> wrote:
> 
> > >
> > It has been brought up before that all too often people 
attempting 
> > to view their past lives will conclude that they were someone 
> > famous. I understand you are not doing this (since that is what 
you 
> > just said-lol), but I wonder if the reason people make this 
error 
> is 
> > because the words, appearance, and actions of famous people are 
> > multiplied by all of the consciousnesses observing them, and as 
> such 
> > gain a greater share of the psychic record so to speak. Easier 
to 
> > tune in- stronger, clearer transmission.
> 
> Yes, could well be. 
> 
> The bottom line as I see it is, all of these conjectures still 
entail 
> identifying with a self that believes itself to be *within* 
> spacetime -- if anything, adding to, embellishing that story.
> 
> Hence, we might argue, essentially a waste of time, if one thinks 
any 
> of this will actually free one from the pain of false-
> identification :-)
>
yeah exactly, why bother? Its a fanciful game played at the expense 
of becoming truly free, charting one's bondage further through time 
and space; Queen Victoria==>Jackie O.==>Britney Spears==>wtf? 

So what is your take on the various Lamas of Tibet who can track 
their incarnations backwards and forwards through time? Seems to 
serve as some sort of example to their religion, and I've heard it 
claimed here on FFL that they do it in an enlightened state to 
continue to serve humanity. 

Personally and I mean no disrespect to them, but there seems to be 
an anal retentive vibe about it. I know that sounds terrible, but I 
cannot conceive of tracking my soul through time like that, each 
time incarnating essentially into the same role. 

If we truly have all possibilities available, why limit ourselves to 
yet another human body in the same spiritual tradition? Unless that 
tradition is so amazingly rich that many incarnations are needed to 
achieve some sort of ultimate state? I dunno, just seems very 
limiting somehow.

There are some students of Buddhist life here-- can anyone please 
comment on this? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:35 AM
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > > You would not make such a claim simply because it is not
> > > > > physically possible. Goering, along with all the top 
> > > > > nazi-fellows are enjoying a very long extended stay in 
> > > > > utter and total tamas. It's not for me to say for how 
> > > > > long but I gather it will be looong...
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have a hot line to hell? 
> > > 
> > > Yep, he does: http://shareintl.org/
> > 
> > No, that's the hotline to wisdom...
> 
> IMO and IME, hell *is* the hotline to wisdom
> 
> 
> :-)

If this world is hell I will agree... ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

>
>"Rory Goff"  > wrote:

> > IMO and IME, hell *is* the hotline to wisdom
 
 :-)

 "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> yes, very much so-- "to hell and gone" is more than just an idle 
> phrase

DAMN, that's brilliant!

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:35 AM
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > > You would not make such a claim simply because it is not
> > > > > physically possible. Goering, along with all the top 
> > > > > nazi-fellows are enjoying a very long extended stay in 
> > > > > utter and total tamas. It's not for me to say for how 
> > > > > long but I gather it will be looong...
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have a hot line to hell? 
> > > 
> > > Yep, he does: http://shareintl.org/
> > 
> > No, that's the hotline to wisdom...
> 
> IMO and IME, hell *is* the hotline to wisdom
> 
> 
> :-)
>
yes, very much so-- "to hell and gone" is more than just an idle 
phrase

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:35 AM
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > > You would not make such a claim simply because it is not
> > > > physically possible. Goering, along with all the top 
> > > > nazi-fellows are enjoying a very long extended stay in 
> > > > utter and total tamas. It's not for me to say for how 
> > > > long but I gather it will be looong...
> > > 
> > > Do you have a hot line to hell? 
> > 
> > Yep, he does: http://shareintl.org/
> 
> No, that's the hotline to wisdom...

IMO and IME, hell *is* the hotline to wisdom


:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:35 AM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > You would not make such a claim simply because it is not
> > > physically possible. Goering, along with all the top 
> > > nazi-fellows are enjoying a very long extended stay in 
> > > utter and total tamas. It's not for me to say for how 
> > > long but I gather it will be looong...
> > 
> > Do you have a hot line to hell? 
> 
> Yep, he does: http://shareintl.org/

No, that's the hotline to wisdom...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:35 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
> 
>  
> 
> > You would not make such a claim simply because it is not
> > physically possible. Goering, along with all the top 
> > nazi-fellows are enjoying a very long extended stay in 
> > utter and total tamas. It's not for me to say for how 
> > long but I gather it will be looong...
> 
> Do you have a hot line to hell? 

Yep, he does: http://shareintl.org/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:35 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
> 
>  
> 
> You would not make such a claim simply because it is not 
physically 
> possible. Goering, along with all the top nazi-fellows are 
enjoying 
> a very long extended stay in utter and total tamas. It's not for 
me 
> to say for how long but I gather it will be looong...
> 
> Do you have a hot line to hell? What qualifies you to say with 
certainty
> where any deceased person is now or how long they will be there?

Read it again, I did not write what you claim, neither where 
tamas "is" nor how long they'll enjoy their stay. You did as usual 
not get the facts correct.
 
But, haha, careful now Mr. Archer or I'll just let you know the 
carma for rumourmonging ! ;-) 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:30 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

 

"a hot line to hell"

Thanks for my next song title Rick!

Do I get a commission? How about an autographed T-Shirt?


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.24/1117 - Release Date: 11/7/2007
10:52 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> >
> It has been brought up before that all too often people attempting 
> to view their past lives will conclude that they were someone 
> famous. I understand you are not doing this (since that is what you 
> just said-lol), but I wonder if the reason people make this error 
is 
> because the words, appearance, and actions of famous people are 
> multiplied by all of the consciousnesses observing them, and as 
such 
> gain a greater share of the psychic record so to speak. Easier to 
> tune in- stronger, clearer transmission.

Yes, could well be. 

The bottom line as I see it is, all of these conjectures still entail 
identifying with a self that believes itself to be *within* 
spacetime -- if anything, adding to, embellishing that story.

Hence, we might argue, essentially a waste of time, if one thinks any 
of this will actually free one from the pain of false-
identification :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[curtisdeltablues]

"a hot line to hell"

Thanks for my next song title Rick!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:35 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
> 
>  
> 
> You would not make such a claim simply because it is not physically 
> possible. Goering, along with all the top nazi-fellows are enjoying 
> a very long extended stay in utter and total tamas. It's not for me 
> to say for how long but I gather it will be looong...
> 
> Do you have a hot line to hell? What qualifies you to say with certainty
> where any deceased person is now or how long they will be there?
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.24/1117 - Release Date:
11/7/2007
> 10:52 PM
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:35 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

 

You would not make such a claim simply because it is not physically 
possible. Goering, along with all the top nazi-fellows are enjoying 
a very long extended stay in utter and total tamas. It's not for me 
to say for how long but I gather it will be looong...

Do you have a hot line to hell? What qualifies you to say with certainty
where any deceased person is now or how long they will be there?


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.24/1117 - Release Date: 11/7/2007
10:52 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Robert Gimbel]

 (snip)
> I have no objections to "being" Goering, or Hitler, or anyone else, 
> you understand -- I am just trying to be clear about the actual 
> experience and its possible ramifications.  
 (Snip)

For whatever it's worth, from my information on a couple of the dudes 
mentioned...
I feel that I  met the reincarnation of Herman Goering, in Madison, Wi. 
a few years ago...haven't been in touch with him/her, lately though. He 
goes by the name 'Michelle' now; and is a transexual. Karma can be a 
bitch!
Adolf, I felt I  met in Sedona, Az. a few years back...haven't been in 
touch with him lately, either.
Last time I saw him, he was living in a very messy trailer; kind of 
felt (very) haunted; 
He is quite short physically, is part Mexican, likes to smoke weed, and 
is still quite the authoritarian...
Last time I was there he(sic) was very involved in a theater group 
there, in Sedona.

Another tid-bit about Sedona(John McCain lives there now, I heard...
Anyway,  if you ever have the chance to go there, and have some extra 
time, and transportation, go west of town a bit;
There's a state park outside of 'Cottonwood, AZ., where I swear the 
jakolopes live...those are the rabbits with the antlers on there 
heads...They're supposed to be a myth, but I saw them there, with my 
own eyes! No kiddding.
They especially like to come out at around dusk(which is when I saw 
them...and besides, the sunsets can be incredible out there, really 
blissful.
That's all for now, over and out. 
r.g.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > He claims he was (see his website), or at least he claims that 
in a
> > past life he was Hitler's second-in-command, who was Bormann. 
What was
> > it like to be Bormann, Rory?
> 
> Actually, I am wondering if you read my website very closely. I 
made no 
> such claim.
> 
> I *did* say that a lot of images and emotions floated up, which I 
> tentatively identified as "past-life memories," and which I 
eventually 
> identified as Herman Goering's, not Martin Bormann's. At the time, 
I 
> found this useful for making sense of emotional patterns I was 
then 
> entangled in: moving through judgement, projection, disempowerment 
and 
> anger, learning to embrace my (and everyone's) innate capacity for 
> evil, and to move from there into unconditional love. 
> 
> I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone 
else 
> for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering *is* 
a 
> part of me, as is everything and everyone else. 
> 
> This feels indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
> radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention 
on it; 
> thanks for asking :-)

You would not make such a claim simply because it is not physically 
possible. Goering, along with all the top nazi-fellows are enjoying 
a very long extended stay in utter and total tamas. It's not for me 
to say for how long but I gather it will be looong...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > "Past-life memories came floating up of following the highly
> > charismatic Hitler; of being his second-in-command;"
> > 
> > I don't think I misread this at all; it looks pretty plain. 
> 
> a) I do see a difference between Bormann and Goering, and 
> 
> b) I also said I didn't know if I "was" Goering, but found 
> the "memories" useful. I still stand by that. 
> 
> I have no objections to "being" Goering, or Hitler, or anyone 
else, 
> you understand -- I am just trying to be clear about the actual 
> experience and its possible ramifications.  
> 
> I have generally found one can access whatever one wishes in the 
> universe, to the degree one needs, by remembering it is all 
oneself, 
> and by simply "being" it -- "know by being" -- which doesn't mean 
one 
> personally "was" or "is" the entity from a transmigratory 
standpoint. 
> Many if not all so-called "past-life" or "future-life" memories 
are 
> equally viewable as a kind of multisensory movie. 
> 
> In the end it is moot, I suppose, as one can learn from and heal 
from 
> the experiences whether they are personally one's own or not. 
That's 
> the great thing about stories -- we make them our own, and derive 
> entertainment and meaning from them. 
> 
> "Claiming" past-lives as one's own however can have significant 
> egoic/delusional pitfalls, particularly if one is tapping into 
> someone famous, and as a rule I definitely don't recommend any 
sort 
> of entertainment as an addictive avoidance of one's a priori 
> emptifulness, or one's unattended pain, though perhaps at times 
that 
> is unavoidable :-)
>  
> > But I like your posts. 
> 
> I'm happy to hear that. Thank you; you're very kind :-)
> 
> *L*L*L*
>
It has been brought up before that all too often people attempting 
to view their past lives will conclude that they were someone 
famous. I understand you are not doing this (since that is what you 
just said-lol), but I wonder if the reason people make this error is 
because the words, appearance, and actions of famous people are 
multiplied by all of the consciousnesses observing them, and as such 
gain a greater share of the psychic record so to speak. Easier to 
tune in- stronger, clearer transmission.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Past-life memories came floating up of following the highly
> charismatic Hitler; of being his second-in-command;"
> 
> I don't think I misread this at all; it looks pretty plain. 

a) I do see a difference between Bormann and Goering, and 

b) I also said I didn't know if I "was" Goering, but found 
the "memories" useful. I still stand by that. 

I have no objections to "being" Goering, or Hitler, or anyone else, 
you understand -- I am just trying to be clear about the actual 
experience and its possible ramifications.  

I have generally found one can access whatever one wishes in the 
universe, to the degree one needs, by remembering it is all oneself, 
and by simply "being" it -- "know by being" -- which doesn't mean one 
personally "was" or "is" the entity from a transmigratory standpoint. 
Many if not all so-called "past-life" or "future-life" memories are 
equally viewable as a kind of multisensory movie. 

In the end it is moot, I suppose, as one can learn from and heal from 
the experiences whether they are personally one's own or not. That's 
the great thing about stories -- we make them our own, and derive 
entertainment and meaning from them. 

"Claiming" past-lives as one's own however can have significant 
egoic/delusional pitfalls, particularly if one is tapping into 
someone famous, and as a rule I definitely don't recommend any sort 
of entertainment as an addictive avoidance of one's a priori 
emptifulness, or one's unattended pain, though perhaps at times that 
is unavoidable :-)
 
> But I like your posts. 

I'm happy to hear that. Thank you; you're very kind :-)

*L*L*L*
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[feste37]

"Past-life memories came floating up of following the highly
charismatic Hitler; of being his second-in-command;"

I don't think I misread this at all; it looks pretty plain. 

But I like your posts. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > He claims he was (see his website), or at least he claims that in a
> > past life he was Hitler's second-in-command, who was Bormann. What was
> > it like to be Bormann, Rory?
> 
> Actually, I am wondering if you read my website very closely. I made no 
> such claim.
> 
> I *did* say that a lot of images and emotions floated up, which I 
> tentatively identified as "past-life memories," and which I eventually 
> identified as Herman Goering's, not Martin Bormann's. At the time, I 
> found this useful for making sense of emotional patterns I was then 
> entangled in: moving through judgement, projection, disempowerment and 
> anger, learning to embrace my (and everyone's) innate capacity for 
> evil, and to move from there into unconditional love. 
> 
> I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone else 
> for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering *is* a 
> part of me, as is everything and everyone else. 
> 
> This feels indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
> radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention on it; 
> thanks for asking :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> He claims he was (see his website), or at least he claims that in a
> past life he was Hitler's second-in-command, who was Bormann. What was
> it like to be Bormann, Rory?

Actually, I am wondering if you read my website very closely. I made no 
such claim.

I *did* say that a lot of images and emotions floated up, which I 
tentatively identified as "past-life memories," and which I eventually 
identified as Herman Goering's, not Martin Bormann's. At the time, I 
found this useful for making sense of emotional patterns I was then 
entangled in: moving through judgement, projection, disempowerment and 
anger, learning to embrace my (and everyone's) innate capacity for 
evil, and to move from there into unconditional love. 

I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone else 
for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering *is* a 
part of me, as is everything and everyone else. 

This feels indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving-
radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention on it; 
thanks for asking :-)