--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying the non-recertified Governors wouldn't have the
> > > > expertise to know???
> > >
> > > Only recertified governors would know whether what Knowles
> > > is teaching is exactly the same as what recertified
> > > governors were certified to teach--i.e., if recertification
> > > involved any changes prescribed by Maharishi from how TM
> > > was taught previously.
> >
> > In this case, if there were any significant changes due to
recertification, in terms of scientific research relating to it, it
would actually mean that the TM of the indies would be more authentic
than the one of the recerts. Because most research was probably done
with people who learned TM before recertification.
> >
>
> If that is the case, Knowles' initiates are not authentic subjects
anymore than TM subjects of recertified TM teachers, because there is no
evidence that Knowles initiates actually do TM whereas TM initiates of
recertified teachers, initiated under the auspices of the TM
organization and backed by TM research used in pre-recertification are
authentic subjects.
>
> Knowles use of TM research assumes his initiates do TM prior to
recertification. This is a false assumption because Knowles' use of the
TM research submitted at the behest of the TM organization whether
funded by the TM organization or not cites TM exclusively as the primary
variable in the research. In an attempt to prove the effectiveness of
meditation, several organization and various articles about "meditation"
as well as Knowles have falsely cited and co-opted TM research, lumping
all the techniques together as if they are all the same, which of
course, they are not.  Further, Knowles does not cite research 
exclusively funded by independent organizations. In other words, Knowles
has co-opted research not related to his technique to give false
credibility to his technique. His use of TM research is fraudulent and
his use of Maharishi's creative content with respect to, organization,
lectures, checking, steps of instruction and initiation and the TM
Sidhis is criminal thievery at its worst.

I am not a lawyer, but I must share, where the TMO screwed themselves
for this case is the passing of information verbally and having
contracts, does not constitute a copyright infringement, patent
infringement or any legal jibberish pertaining to "organization,
lectures, checkings, steps of instruction and initiation and the verbal
only practice of TM-Sidhi's," will not protect a right beyond its own
purpose, its own organization, within those walls per say.  Copyright
would have to be written or recorded and shared that way to those
learning. Ideas cannot be copy written. The idea of sharing mantras
(words that are silent) have no rule to copyright law, and maybe one can
only be exhausted by high attorney fees in an endless battle,....where
is the concern for the PTSD Military or the children at this point of
waste of funds?  The TMO should drop it right now, and go on to keep the
positive things they are sharing, the TM.  The egos fussing over this,
should quit and let the ego less people teach, share the knowledge and
stop trying to control what nature itself is orchestrating...a wake up
call to back down on control and share peaceful knowledge. Less enemies
are formed, less people go astray and I see no difference in the Roman
Catholic Church history as to what the TMO is doing by attacking this
man or others, who go their own route, because they (the renegades)
obviously have some charisma to draw attention to newbies and no
technique owns a person, a corporation, a natural being.   Most States
have laws which protect from no compete agreements, when one has learned
everything or all from another corporation as an apprentice, but the
laws support the protection of a corporation doing business with another
corporation and that makes any no compete agreement null and void. A
company cannot hold another from a trade.  As for Patents? Nope. Nada.  
Just saying.
>
>
> > > Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, I have no idea. I wouldn't
> > > put it past Maharishi, however, to have introduced some
> > > changes *in anticipation of what's going on now with the
> > > legal challenge to independents*. If the independents
> > > hadn't themselves been recertified, they wouldn't know
> > > about the changes and could therefore be shown not to
> > > be teaching TM a la Maharishi when the issue arose.
> >
> > And that's a blow to the whole idea of 'purity of teaching'. Even
the idea to change a technique for copyright reasons seems abstruse to
me. Where does this leave Maharishi?
> > >
> > > (I've always thought the whole recertification business
> > > and the rajas business were designed by Maharishi to
> > > weed out the less-than-totally-committed because he knew
> > > he wouldn't be around much longer and wanted to hand
> > > over the tightest possible ship to his successor, knowing
> > > that when he was gone it would be difficult to keep the
> > > movement from splintering.)
> > >
> > > > And the only definitive way for you and Judy to be satisfied
> > > > would be for a recertified governor to take the Vedic
> > > > meditation course itself to be really sure and in what
> > > > universe is that gonna happen
> > >
> > > If the TMO thought that would help its legal case, it could
> > > very well happen.
> > >
> > > BTW, "satisfied" doesn't mean quite what you're assuming
> > > where I'm concerned. I'm a long-term practitioner but not
> > > a TB in that sense. For me it's more a matter of
> > > intellectual curiosity; I don't really have a dog in the
> > > fight.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  - so I will re-iterate that it certainly appears that they are
teaching exactly the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > On second thought, people who used to teach TM and now teach
Vedic Meditation would be in a position to know, but unless they were
recertified governors I guess it would not count for reasons I cannot
fathom.
> > > >
> > > > I will point out, not that it is definitive proof, that Thom
Knowles on his bio says point blank that"He learned
> > > > Vedic Meditation from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who became
Thom’s personal
> > > > mentor and his predominant spiritual and educational influence
over the
> > > > next two decades."
> > > > He also claims to have played a "key role" in teaching
meditation in the Philippines - how bout it? Anyone here on FFL who was
part of the Philippines project remember him?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >  From: Share Long
> > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:36 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Legal fight over calming
technique lacks harmony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > I agree with Judy, Michael, it is a reasonable question. 
Only a recertified gov would know if all of Thom's procedures, checking,
etc. are the same as the TMOs.  These I think should be covered by
copyright if they aren't already.  But I also think that the
research should be considered in the public domain.  Otherwise what
a kafufel to sort out what was paid for by government grant and which
wasn't.
> > > >
> > > > I also think it's a good point about maintaining the connection
to the Holy Tradition.  Since I'm not a gov I'm not sure how that is
maintained or lost or if the latter is even possible. Â Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, Michael, I did read the info you posted about Thom. 
I've heard of others who have taken a similar path.  I've heard
positive results from such.  But I'm staying with the one who brung
me (-:
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to