Ahhh ha ha ha. Well, not and admit it anyway.
>________________________________ > From: authfriend <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:04 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily > > > >--- In [email protected], Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> Goodness Judy, that's twice you've been wrong in the recent past. > Smiley >> face. > >Ain't it awful? If I'm to maintain my average, it means >I can't be wrong again for another two years. )-: > > >> >________________________________ >> > From: authfriend >> >To: [email protected] >> >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:42 AM >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily >> > >> > >> > >> >--- In [email protected], Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> >> >> Just a figure of speech, conversational, if I really "hated >> >> to say it," I wouldn't have said it. Smile. >> > >> >I'm wrong again. "Figure of speech" would have been my >> >second wild guess, though. ;-) >> > >> >> > From: Share Long >> >> >To: "[email protected][email protected]> >> >> >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:24 AM >> >> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Emily, what is it you hate to say? And why? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >________________________________ >> >> > From: Emily Reyn >> >> >To: "[email protected][email protected]> >> >> >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:01 PM >> >> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >I read it and the comments last night; hate to say, but leaving >> >> >Maharishi and the TMO out, benefits from TM come across.  >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >>________________________________ >> >> >> From: Michael Jackson >> >> >>To: "[email protected][email protected]> >> >> >>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:51 AM >> >> >>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Oh by the way, why not go visit the New York Times magazine article on >> >> >>Raja David and his band of con artists again and see how many post >> >> >>there are. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>________________________________ >> >> >> From: authfriend >> >> >>To: [email protected] >> >> >>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM >> >> >>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> While I do not want to get into this particular sparring match >> >> >>> between MJ and JS about whether TM is a devotional practice or >> >> >>> not, >> >> >> >> >> >>What Michael and I are actually "sparring" about is >> >> >>Michael's unwillingness--or inability--to address the >> >> >>case emptybill made that TM is not a devotional >> >> >>practice. >> >> >> >> >> >>> the following link points to a few pages of Maharishi's Theory >> >> >>> of Spiritual development from 1955, which is the earliest >> >> >>> document I know of that describes his system of meditation. >> >> >> >> >> >>Actually the link doesn't "point to" anything. It doesn't >> >> >>work (HTTP 404). >> >> >> >> >> >>> This is a PDF document, an excerpt from 'Beacon Light of the >> >> >>> Himalayas'. >> >> >> >> >> >>And I'll just bet it's the excerpt in which Maharishi says: >> >> >> >> >> >>"...We find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the >> >> >>mind to become sharp. But we do not select any sound like 'mike', >> >> >>flower, table, pen, wall etc. because such ordinary sounds can >> >> >>do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there >> >> >>are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of >> >> >>producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial >> >> >>to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not >> >> >>select any word at random. For our practice we select only the >> >> >>suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the >> >> >>grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of >> >> >>life." >> >> >> >> >> >>Right? >> >> >> >> >> >>> Because the TMO did not exist then, and this was published without a >> >> >>> copyright, I will assume it is in the public domain. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://bit.ly/YQmNKW >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
