Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.  Of course the fact that Dr. Oz practices 
TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it.  Just as Fr Keating's Batgap 
interview does not negate my somewhat bad experiences with the Catholic Church. 
 But again, I'm not continuing to speak against Catholicism, etc.  Whereas 
Michael does continue to speak against TM, etc. and seems to have quite a 
charge when he does so.  From my own experience with charges, I'd say there's a 
deeper issue going on that just what appears on the surface.  

Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems pretty savvy to 
me, stop being deluded about TMO.  This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz 
is afraid to disagree with Oprah.  This latter statement especially indicates 
to me that there's a deeper issue present.  I've got my issues too so I'm not 
saying it's a bad thing.  But I give less weight to what someone says if it 
seems to me that there are other deeper issues present.  And I realize when 
people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue present.  If 
someone's energy feels off in either direction, then I take their opinions with 
a bigger grain of salt.

So I have been asking:  can all these smart and creative people be so deluded 
about the efficacy of TM?  Maybe they simply choose to use what's useful about 
it and leave the rest.


I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity, endorses TM only 
because he was asked to do so.  If indeed that is how it happened.  Maybe he 
approached them.  Maybe he had good experiences and liked what the research 
said, etc. and decided he wanted to share something valuable with others.  I 
think most people want to help others.  Then it's up to others to figure out 
whose opinion can actually be helpful to them.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.  


________________________________
 From: Carol <jchwe...@gmail.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and Carol
 

  
Share stated: 
"Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have or express 
negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or Jesus Christ.  So 
there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I can easily believe that a smart, 
successful and healthy person might practice Christianity."

Good point. 

I'm around some folks who regularly do criticize Christianity and belief in 
God(s). For me that's where the comparison comes in between Collins and 
Christianity with Dr. Oz and TM. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. :)

What is there to reconcile with Oz and TM? I don't get what needs to be 
reconciled.

Just because Dr. Oz (or anyone else) likes and practices TM and touts its 
benefits doesn't negate another person's bad or toxic experiences with TM or 
the TMO.

Of course, any business/corporation likes to have well known folks endorse 
them. Sells more product, practice, whatever the goods are. Dr. Oz's 
endorsement of TM and the TMO (if he does endorse them) is good PR for the TMO.

The gekko endorses Geiko. And then there's Flo for Progressive. But I'm still 
with Nationwide; I like my agent and the service. 

**********

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply Michael.  Just a couple of points:
> I don't know that Dr. Oz is unwilling to disagree with Oprah.  Do you know 
> that for a fact?  He seems pretty independent to me.
> 
> I don't know enough about mantras to comment on that.  And I don't think TM 
> is superior because anyone said so.  I think it is unique in the 
> effortlessness of it process.  My own logic tells me that this 
> effortlessness is what makes it the best meditation technique that I know 
> of.  I am happy with it so don't feel compelled to look for another.
> 
> Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have or express 
> negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or Jesus Christ.  
> So there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I can easily believe that a smart, 
> successful and healthy person might practice Christianity.  
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> 
> 
>   
> Let's see - there are a whole bunch of people who practice and tout TM who 
> could variously be characterized as Bliss Ninny's and other such names, I 
> should start TM again because he agrees with them? 
> 
> Should I take his word for it when he agrees with, hmmm let's see, the German 
> Purusha guys I have read about here on FFL who wear swastikas under their 
> ties and party when it is Hitler's birthday?
> 
> Or should I continue to
>  chart my own course? The bottom line answer to your question is six fold, 
> Shary. 
> 
> One - I am confident enough in my own experience and ability to decide things
>  for myself that I do not suddenly reverse course on the word of a celebrity 
> who owes his fame to Oprah and is unwilling to disagree with her. 
> 
> Two - I agree he is intelligent and the fact that he thinks TM is a good 
> thing, I don't hold against
>  him. 
> One day I trust he will come out of that particular delusion.
> 
> Three - Other intelligent people, like me, were deluded by Marshy and TM 
> sales pitches, cuz that is exactly what they have always been, sales pitches. 
> Therefore I don't hold it against him that he too is deluded about TM.
> 
> Four - This is speculation, but I do not believe he has the benefit of the 
> experiences of seeing some of the things I have seen in TM - abusive behavior 
> on the part of TM longtimers especially the popinjay Governors with a little 
> bit of TM authority and the unstressing phenomenon, particularly that seen on 
> long rounding courses. Were he aware of these things, I trust he would be 
> intelligent enough to alter his opinion of TM and its pimps.
> 
> Five - He is unaware the TMO treats himself and all TM celebrities far 
> differently than they treat rank and file meditators, sidhas and Governors 
> who have no money, celebrity or TM authority within the Movement. 
> 
> As
>  an aside, I must admit that the TMO is an equal opportunity abuser. 
> Those donkeys will abuse anyone whom they think they have authority over, be 
> they meditators or Governors. 
> 
> The difference in treatment of celebrities and money people on the one hand 
> and regular folks on the other were he to see it, I am sure his magnificent 
> intelligence would enable him to question the efficacy of TM.
> 
> Six - I agree that the simple practice of TM itself can make one feel 
> refreshed and rested under the right circumstances (i.e. - the TM meditator 
> generally has to have had a good night's sleep the night before, can't be 
> hung over, kapha, pitta and vata has to be balanced just right, has to sleep 
> in a vastu ved house, had the proper amount of Amrit Kalash upon arising, had 
> the proper amount of yagyas done that month, but only by a certified Marshy 
> pundit) with all those parameters being met, one can feel good after TM.
> 
> But this does not happen
>  because there is something special about TM
>  itself,
>  contrary to what Bobby Roth, David Lynch, Johnnie Hagelin and all the other 
> TM pimps claim. It happens because Pure Awareness is natural and we connect 
> with it, we are it, every minute of every day. Just settling in and getting 
> quiet or using other mantras or following the breath will do it. TM people 
> believe TM is superior for one reason - because Marshy said it was. For TM to 
> be superior, there would have to be something about the TM mantras that is 
> superior and there is not. If you believe the TM mantras are superior tell me 
> how? If it isn't that TM mantras that are superior, then what is it that 
> makes TM superior?
> 
> So given the fact that I know TM is not superior to any other way of being 
> myself I am not stupid enough to change my life based on Mehmet Oz's 
> incorrect assumptions and TM delusions that I have already cured myself of. 
> So there is your answer Share. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> 
> 
>   
> Well it makes it grosser.  But grosser is not plainer.  And it has nothing 
> to do with taking the word of a famous, rich person.  It has to do with 
> taking the word of an intelligent, independent person who also happens to be 
> rich and famous.  That's what you keep avoiding, isn't it?  That Dr. Oz is 
> smart and completely independent of TMO.  I'm guessing that's really what 
> you can't reconcile with all your beliefs about TM.  That someone really 
> smart and successful and knowledgeable about health would choose to practice 
> it.    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> 
> 
>   
> Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
> premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> 
> 
>   
> What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
> saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
> able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
> healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> 
> I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And 
> so they are evading it.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> 
> 
>   
> I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
> they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> 
> 
>   
> Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
> about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
> successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking 
> that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and 
> Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables 
> them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment 
> field.  
> 
> PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> 
> > > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > From NYTimes page:
> > Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
> > "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 
> > 1970s. I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the 
> > process of sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, 
> > peer-reviewed scientific research, and the number of compassionate and 
> > helpful programs such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's 
> > foundation, kept me engaged in research and writing for two years. I have 
> > practiced TM since 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I 
> > must say I was overwhelmed â€" and I do not use that word lightly â€" by 
> > the extent and depth of the benefits I uncovered in my research. From 
> > greatly improved health, better educational outcomes, stress reduction, and 
> > the awakening to higher states of consciousness, to replicated 
> > interventions in war-torn areas that resulted in calm and peace, the 
> > benefits of TM are thoroughly demonstrated and truly extraordinary. I find 
> > it sad that some misinformed
 and/or
>  angry people find it necessary to attack such a good thing, that has helped, 
> and is helping, so many. I would urge them to investigate more deeply and 
> re-think their position."
> > 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;
> 
> But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
> or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
> working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.
> 
> But their story was somehow neglected from his research?
>


 

Reply via email to