--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> > Who here still believes that enlightenment confers
> > perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or
> > who actually *has* realized) enlightenm
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > If he takes authorship of obeyeing God's will in waging
> > the war, he takes on its karmic consequences, according
> > to the premise.
>
> If
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > No surprise that "t'would seem" that way to you,
> > given that you've closed your mind to the
> > possibility that anybody could even have that
> > experi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If he takes authorship of obeyeing God's will in waging
> the war, he takes on its karmic consequences, according
> to the premise.
>
If a guru takes authorship of believing he is enlightened and that all
his act
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's
> > > judgmen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
> wrote:
> >
> > When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's
> > judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted
> > him to do bad
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume
> > authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility
> > for. Michael Dean
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's
> > > judg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know
> what nature "wants" and why.
And its impossible to know what a granite boulder wants. Or maybe its
a false premise to assume that the boulder or Natur
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume
> authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility
> for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the
> phrase "spontaneous right action," the em
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
> wrote:
> >
> > When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's
> > judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted
> > him to do bad
New.morn, Would you please repeat your post.??
"new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 16:35:41 -
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
>
> Can you define "wrong action"?
>
> I suggest
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's
> judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted
> him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate,
> because he had influen
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 15:56:48 -
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
>
>
> Can you define "wrong action"?
>
> I suggest that perhaps the underlying premise is hollow -- how can one
> act "wrongly&
When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment
and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad
things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had
influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy
and basically faultless.You voted
ndu philosophy calls those two actions as Shreyas that bring
happiness and Preyas that bring suffering.
"new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 15:56:48 -0000
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Can you define "wr
New wrote:
> And of course the third premise I challenge
> is the concept and label of enlightenment.
>
The term "enlightenment" in South Asian
literature is the "liberation from the cycle
of death and rebirth"; the transcendence of
phenomenal being; a state of higher consciousness,
in which
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The more important issue IMO is that people
> who have chosen to believe that enlightenment
> is a state in which the enlightened can do no
> wrong
Can you define "wrong action"?
I suggest that perhaps the underl
along with the big E comes Cosmic responsibility..??
If Maharishi is Cosmic, then he should take responsibility for the whole
of Cosmos..??
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 06:43:16 -
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
Judy wrote:
> > The problem is, you have your own idiosyncratic
> > definition of it. You deliberately define it so
> > as to be indefensible. More solipsism.
> >
> > The way you define it has nothing to do with the
> > actual premise, which you clearly don't even
> > understand, even after some o
> > Because I say so. So there. :)
> >
TurquoiseB wrote:
> Maharishi said so, and we just bought it.
>
Mabe it was you who 'bought it' to the tune of
$50,000. So, why, exactly did you give all that
money to Marshy and Rama if you didn't believe
it?
>
> Go figure, eh?
>
I'm still trying to figur
TurquoiseB wrote:
> I'm a big fan of "Before enlightenment, chop
> wood and carry water; after enlightenment,
> chop wood and carry water."
>
This is one of the most famous 'circle jerk'
statements in the enlightenment tradition.
The problem is that you haven't defined the
word 'enlightenment'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On May 18, 2008, at 1:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> > So, those of you who still do, WHY do you still
> > choose to believe it? Can you present any arguments
> > to support your belief?
>
> Yes, I can, Barry.
>
> Be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
wrote:
> >
> > > One of my reasons for bringing up this subject in
> > > the first place was to see
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> > One of my reasons for bringing up this subject in
> > the first place was to see if anyone here (many
> > if not most of whom still believe this dogma
On May 18, 2008, at 1:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
So, those of you who still do, WHY do you still
choose to believe it? Can you present any arguments
to support your belief?
Yes, I can, Barry.
Because I say so. So there. :)
Well, it works with my kids. Actually, it doesn't...
Sal
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my reasons for bringing up this subject in
> the first place was to see if anyone here (many
> if not most of whom still believe this dogma
> thoroughly) would try to come up with some intel-
> lectual reason FO
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You have hit the nail right on it's head.
>
> You see, this is just an extension of the old Semitic
> religion's dogma..
>
> Islam can do no wrong.
>
> The Koran can d
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> wrote:
> >
> > Angela Mailander wrote:
> > >
> > The age of consent in Iowa is 14, and it is
> > > a law that is often abused by the criminal justice
You have hit the nail right on it's head.
You see, this is just an extension of the old Semitic religion's
dogma..
Islam can do no wrong.
The Koran can do no wrong.
The Prophet can do no wrong.
Ayatholla Khomeni can
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Angela Mailander wrote:
> >
> The age of consent in Iowa is 14, and it is
> > a law that is often abused by the criminal justice
> > system as it criminalizes "childhood sexuality."
>
> Well, there yo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> inasmuch as the term "want" when applied to Nature
> is actually inapplicable because how could a closed system ever have
> a lack of anything.
Thus, it would follow, Brahman lacks and desires nothing. It is,
Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
The age of consent in Iowa is 14, and it is
> a law that is often abused by the criminal justice
> system as it criminalizes "childhood sexuality."
Well, there you have it. 14 as the age of consent in Iowa is
probably the lowest in the nation. T
authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Sexual deviants such as pedophiles often have history of
>> being sexually abused in childhood. This might even be
>> one of the last remaining samskaras that has to dissolve.
>> However, they
Comments (more exploration) interleaved [in brackets]:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> > > The "perfection," if it exists, is in the enlightened
> > > person saying, "Do this."
Yes. I knew such a man. A decent poet who was a
member of my workshop.
--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela
> Mailander
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly, Bhairitu. Sexual deviancy is a disease
> just
> > like cancer. If a per
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Exactly, Bhairitu. Sexual deviancy is a disease just
> like cancer. If a person can have cancer and be
> enlightened (and I submit they can), then a person can
> "suffer" from this disease also. And, as Judy h
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> > > The "perfection," if it exists, is in the enlightened
> > > person saying, "Do this." Nature "wants" the person
> > > to say that.
>
> Not an ar
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sexual deviants such as pedophiles often have history of
> being sexually abused in childhood. This might even be
> one of the last remaining samskaras that has to dissolve.
> However, they should seek help to get these r
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > The "perfection," if it exists, is in the enlightened
> > person saying, "Do this." Nature "wants" the person
> > to say that.
Not an argument of this, but an exploration.
If Nature is perfect (a premise of some,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> > Who here still believes that enlightenment confers
> > perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or
> > who actually *has* realized) enlighten
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
> > wrote:
> > Who here still believes that enlightenment confers
> > > perfection on the one w
Well said, Judy, and this relates to Jim's premise/experience
regarding the perfection of what "is". One's own sense of right and
wrong, the individual's aspirations and achievements, our apparent
successes and perceived failures, they are all part of the mix.
Even those times in our lives wh
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
> wrote:
> Who here still believes that enlightenment confers
> > perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or
> > who actually *has* realized) enlightenm
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It seems the more I think about it the less certain
> I am about what enlightenement is.
Maybe you are onto something there.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Who here still believes that enlightenment confers
> perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or
> who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here
> believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Better link. http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2859592470100251969WasYrs
>
> There are so many things that are perfect in this picture I
> have lost count.
I am more partial to this particular perfection.
Hill
Better link. http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2859592470100251969WasYrs
There are so many things that are perfect in this picture I have lost
count.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote:
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are
> > "perfect" is one thing.
>
> Since Curtis is collecting diagrams -- and btw, a collection of such
> would make a great book-- can we have a diagram showin
> `Improved moral thinking' is now one of the main points that improves
> with TM as J ohn Hagelin lectured about the benefits of meditation at
> the David Lynch weekend. Also standard before that in his Grand
> Review of the Unified Field lecture series. Moral reasoning from
> the transce
>
> The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are
> "perfect" is one thing.
Since Curtis is collecting diagrams -- and btw, a collection of such
would make a great book-- can we have a diagram showing how any
relative thing, like actions, can be "perfect"?
Even if one was an anthropormor
You label it dogma and with the word, the label somhow feel you have
already proven your point and it is dismissed, negated, and
diminished. Your argument, your point is your bias. It of course is
not a new TM concept that the enlighted are acting from the laws of
nature and therefore acting wi
Good show, Judy. I'm totally with you on this one and
I'm glad you state the main points of that argument so
well cuz I'm too busy to do it myself right now.
"God" may have told some enlightened fart to shoot his
neighbor and eat his heart raw in the market place,
but that shouldn't keep anyone f
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who here still believes that enlightenment confers
> perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or
> who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here
> believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> It seems to me, watching the tales of Neil
> Patterson and Andy Rhymer appear again (not to
> mention the casual aside to Sai Baba, a Class-A
> pedophile in his own right), together with the
> ongoing exercises in
> The dogma in question is that the enlightened
> are perfectly in accord with the "laws of nature,"
> and thus can do no wrong. Their actions are *by
> definition* "life-supporting."
Excellent observation Turq,
Is about TM spiritual arrogance.
`Improved moral thinking' is now one of the main p
58 matches
Mail list logo
