--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Being in a small
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that expansion of awareness to infinite values through
TM is the centerpiece of Vedic knowledge, and if you don't get that,
you're missing the whole point.
That's just your rose-colored-glasses point of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
on 2/4/06 9:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ONLY if you buy the definition of enlightenment that
Maharishi peddles. That's my point. His definition
is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
snip
That lecture you downloaded yesterday, the section on
enlightenment and assholes, touches nicely on this topic and how
people (e.g. Adi Da, Chogyam
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
on 2/4/06 6:05 PM, bbrigante at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
premanandpaul@ wrote:
'Vedic literature' is full of ghastly wars, vile punishments for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
premanandpaul@ wrote:
A flying monkey and a shape shifting king of Lanka are quite
beautiful images to be found in the Ramayana. So too is the
idea
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:11 AM, authfriend wrote:
The grain of the evolution of the Kosmos sounds an
awful lot like a standard, then.
It also
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Q. How does one distinguish apparently supernatural phenomena from
mere misperception or worse, another's attempt to mislead?
A. By attempting to separate my suggestibility from the actuality of
any given
On Feb 6, 2006, at 6:49 AM, sparaig wrote:But if Ethos naturally follows, then that's just what MMY claims inthe first place. Whether or not MMY himself is ethical or enlightened or whatever, is a different question. If you have a lecture or transcript of M. talking on ethics, I'd like to hear
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
on 2/4/06 9:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ONLY if you buy the definition of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
There *is* a criterion that would make one tend to
respect such descriptions in
Your recollection is incorrect. I don't *know* that
the experiences (of levitation, someone turning
invisible, etc.) would have been captured on video
or in a photograph.
Most of us wouldn't find that to be real in the
usual sense of hte word.
Most of us can go suck eggs.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
Lacking personal experience, if one has developed it,
one could use one's intuition. And again:
How do you know your intuition has
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your recollection is incorrect. I don't *know* that
the experiences (of levitation, someone turning
invisible, etc.) would have been captured on video
or in a photograph.
Most of us wouldn't find that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
Your recollection is incorrect. I don't *know* that
the experiences (of levitation, someone turning
invisible, etc.) would have been
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Your recollection is incorrect. I don't *know* that
the experiences (of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
There
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
Your recollection is incorrect. I don't *know* that
the experiences (of levitation, someone turning
invisible, etc.) would have been
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Your recollection is incorrect. I don't *know* that
the experiences (of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Your
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And Barry has already admittedthat not everyone who was there
when he saw things like levitation saw levitation.
Ahem. Barry *volunteered* that information, as part
of giving an honest representation of the situation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
What I was suggesting, of course, is exactly the
opposite: that *all* reality is subjective.
When something is so real that its mutually subjective to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
What I was suggesting, of course, is exactly the
opposite: that *all* reality is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
Being in a small subset isn't such a bad thing,
man. You could learn a lot from it.
I'm in a small subset of the posters on this forum in that I'm
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
Being in a small subset isn't such a bad thing,
man. You could learn a lot from
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
Being in a small subset isn't such a bad thing,
man. You could learn a lot from
Evaluating spiritual topics is an open domain here where anyone,
regardless of standing, may profer opinion.
It is of note that rather than offering reasoned argument, you resort
to making a personal attack. You make this slight, concerning your
perception of my intelligence, but do not offer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evaluating spiritual topics is an open domain here where anyone,
regardless of standing, may profer opinion.
It is of note that rather than offering reasoned argument, you
resort to making a personal
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
snip
That lecture you downloaded yesterday, the section on
enlightenment and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It is of note that rather than offering reasoned argument, you resort
to making a personal attack. You make this slight, concerning your
perception of my intelligence, but do not offer any cogent
But what is considered ethical varies widely and changes
constantly. Where do you find an unchanging standard?
As the term is generally used in Buddhism, ethics
comes from within and never changes; it implies a
sensitivity to one's own internal meter of right
and wrong. What is
On Feb 5, 2006, at 2:54 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:As the term is generally used in Buddhism, ethics comes from within and never changes; it implies a sensitivity to one's own internal "meter" of right and wrong.Yep, the whole theme of "relative bodhichitta" vs. "absolute bodhichitta".As Ken Wilber
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 2:54 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
As the term is generally used in Buddhism, ethics
comes from within and never changes; it implies a
sensitivity to one's own internal meter of right
and wrong.
Yep, the
A flying monkey and a shape shifting king of Lanka are quite
beautiful images to be found in the Ramayana. So too is the idea that
supernatural weapons might be used in warfare, in the place of
conventional and crude weaponry, to be found in the Bhagavadgita. But
in the 21st century we tend to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what is considered ethical varies widely and changes
constantly. Where do you find an unchanging standard?
As the term is generally used in Buddhism, ethics
comes from within and never changes; it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 2:54 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
As the term is generally used in Buddhism, ethics
comes from within and never changes; it implies a
sensitivity to one's own internal meter of right
and wrong.
Yep, the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A flying monkey and a shape shifting king of Lanka are quite
beautiful images to be found in the Ramayana. So too is the
idea that supernatural weapons might be used in warfare, in
the place of
Individual, internal ethics provides a standard only
for the individual.
And?
Why should there be a standard?
You were contrasting the Buddhist view of ethics
with external morality as a standard. It refers
to my question above as to how one can judge
whether another is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A flying monkey and a shape shifting king of Lanka are quite
beautiful images to be found in the Ramayana. So too is the idea
that supernatural weapons might be used in warfare, in the place of
conventional
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Individual, internal ethics provides a standard only
for the individual.
And?
Why should there be a standard?
You were contrasting the Buddhist view of ethics
with external morality as a
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:11 AM, authfriend wrote:The "grain of the evolution of the Kosmos" sounds an awful lot like a "standard," then. It also sounds a lot like action in accord with the laws of nature. Well not really because people at different stages of development will experience and act
I was posing a question... originally about the duration
of 'enlightenment' - my point was that everything must be assumed to
be impermanent (temporary) until proved otherwise. I consider that
defining enlightenment as permanent has no sound basis. On the other
hand, I think it quite
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:11 AM, authfriend wrote:
The grain of the evolution of the Kosmos sounds an
awful lot like a standard, then.
It also sounds a lot like action in accord with the laws
of nature.
Well not
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was posing a question... originally about the duration
of 'enlightenment' - my point was that everything must be assumed
to
be impermanent (temporary) until proved otherwise. I consider that
defining
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:43 AM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:11 AM, authfriend wrote: The "grain of the evolution of the Kosmos" sounds an awful lot like a "standard," then. It also sounds a lot like action in accord
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
premanandpaul@ wrote:
As to supernatural powers and perceptions, I don't doubt that
supernatural phenomena has occurred within the context of my own
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Q. How does one distinguish apparently supernatural phenomena from
mere misperception or worse, another's attempt to mislead?
A. By attempting to separate my suggestibility from the actuality
of
any
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:43 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:11 AM, authfriend wrote:
The grain of the evolution of the Kosmos sounds an
awful
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
premanandpaul@ wrote:
As to supernatural powers and perceptions, I don't doubt that
Lacking personal experience, if one has developed it,
one could use one's intuition. And again:
How do you know your intuition has developed
sufficiently to be able to evaluate claims for
a phenomenon that you haven't experienced?
I've given you the best answer I can already,
twice
on 2/4/06 10:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter sounds like Megalonmania 101. If you're
a megalomaniac, you find a way to make *everything*
about you. That's what he was doing; he wasn't really
owning up to making any mistakes.
Like the ice stalagmite that formed on
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
on 2/4/06 10:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter sounds like Megalomania 101. If you're
a megalomaniac, you find a way to make *everything*
about you. That's what he was doing; he wasn't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 2/4/06 9:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ONLY if you buy the definition of enlightenment that
Maharishi peddles. That's my point. His definition
is that the enlightened can do no wrong.
To imagine that the belief that the enlightened can do no 'wrong' is
roughly the same as believing in the 'blue-blood' of royals, and their
intimate connection with God. But, I reckon most people have
experienced 'enlightenment' temporarilly, if only for a few minutes.
Probably MMY has
Possibly, to imagine that the enlightened can do no 'wrong' is roughly
the same as believing in the 'blue-blood' of royals and their
intimate connection with God. But, I reckon most people have
experienced 'enlightenment', if only for a few minutes. Probably MMY
has experienced enlightenment
Possibly to imagine that the belief that the enlightened can do
no 'wrong' is roughly similar to believing in the 'blue-blood' of
royals, and their intimate connection with God. But, I reckon most
people have experienced 'enlightenment' temporarilly, if only for a few
minutes. Probably MMY has
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer fairfieldlife@
wrote:
on 2/4/06 10:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter sounds like Megalomania 101. If you're
a megalomaniac, you find
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't it just certain individuals trying to take advantage of
others' suggestibility.
That's certainly been a theme throughout the entire
history of spiritual development.
Ironically, it is often the more
To recapitulate, from my observation, it is often the more spiritually
inclined who get involved in the teachings of the church or in the
thinking of a particular 'spiritual' teacher. Having gotten involved,
they soon find there are certain beliefs about infallability to deal
with, and I think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To recapitulate, from my observation, it is often the more
spiritually
inclined who get involved in the teachings of the church or in the
thinking of a particular 'spiritual' teacher. Having gotten
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ingegerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you. To raise critical questions is a good thing - even
when it comes to Guru Dev - who is my absolute favorite. I love his
quotations. He was very strict - but he was true to his principles.
He choosed
on 2/4/06 1:27 PM, wayback71 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ingegerd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I agree with you. To raise critical questions is a good thing - even
when it comes to Guru Dev - who is my absolute favorite. I love his
quotations. He was
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 2/4/06 1:27 PM, wayback71 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ingegerd marwincornyarmand@
wrote:
I agree with you. To raise critical questions is a good thing - even
when
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
on 2/4/06 10:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter sounds like Megalonmania 101. If you're
a megalomaniac, you find a way to make *everything*
about you. That's what he was doing; he wasn't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer fairfieldlife@
wrote:
on 2/4/06 10:32 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter sounds like Megalomania 101. If you're
a megalomaniac, you find a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To recapitulate, from my observation, it is often the more
spiritually
inclined who get involved in the teachings of the church or in the
thinking of a particular 'spiritual' teacher. Having gotten
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To recapitulate, from my observation, it is often the more
spiritually
inclined who get involved in the teachings of the church or in the
thinking of a particular 'spiritual' teacher. Having gotten
I replied to this message earlier but somehow the message appears to
have become lost.
When Guru Dev became Shankaracharya he relaxed his habit of keeping
his distance of women. In fact, if you look at the filmstock of him
giving satsang it is clear there are many women present.
I have the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 2/4/06 1:27 PM, wayback71 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Is it true that women were not allowed near Guru
Dev?
That's what I heard. There's a story that he said he
had
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possibly, to imagine that the enlightened can do no 'wrong' is
roughly
the same as believing in the 'blue-blood' of royals and their
intimate connection with God. But, I reckon most people have
experienced
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'Vedic literature' is full of ghastly wars, vile punishments for
minor crimes, talking animals and wizardry too.
So is every other religious/cultural literary work from that periodof
human history, as far as
on 2/4/06 6:05 PM, bbrigante at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'Vedic literature' is full of ghastly wars, vile punishments for
minor crimes, talking animals and wizardry too.
**
You wrote a
But after becoming Shankaracharya he relaxed that standpoint about
not allowing women around. You only have to look at the filmstock of
him speaking live, to see there were loads of women attending his
lecture.
I have the contact details of an elderly lady who claims to be his
first woman
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
That lecture you downloaded yesterday, the section on
enlightenment and assholes, touches nicely on this topic and how
people (e.g. Adi Da, Chogyam Trungpa) use it to commit the most
unethical acts. As Ken put's it
On Feb 4, 2006, at 8:08 PM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip That lecture you downloaded yesterday, the section on enlightenment and assholes, touches nicely on this topic and how people (e.g. Adi Da, Chogyam Trungpa) use it to commit the
75 matches
Mail list logo
