--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <jchwelch@> wrote: > > > > Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in > general? > > > > I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced upon > him as I was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect that if > anyone ever says he endorses a product, to please not believe that he > endorses that said product. (The context was in regard to weight loss.) > He stated he makes a point to not endorse products even though various > products will claim he endorses them. > > > > So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does > he endorse meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of > meditation (at this point in his life) is TM? > > > > Share stated, "[...] can all these smart and creative people be so > deluded about the efficacy of TM? [...]" > > > > Apparently, TM works for them. That isn't a delusion; it is their > reality. That said, they may be deluded (fooled or ignorant) or choose > to be complacent regarding the TMO and its colored history; or maybe > that just don't have the energy/time to learn about it. > > > I guess you conveniently forgot the point that Share made, that perhaps > they embrace the positive aspects of the technique, and feel that those > positive aspects outweigh the negative parts of the organization. Sorry > if that skews your preconceived notions.
Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it seems it is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you perceive as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her own dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look like you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with someone exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of? > > > > Smart and creative people tout other practices/beliefs/products too. I > don't think they are deluded, but rather that they like said > product/practice. That doesn't mean I or the next person will like said > product/practice. I may even have a horrible experience with the said > product/practice. Hopefully I am somewhat smart and creative. > > > > I am suspicious when anyone pushes anything as the one true technique > to bring peace and resolution and absolute health to humanity. I'm not > saying any celebrities push TM as such; I don't keep up with that sort > of information. > > > > As far as Micheal and any of his issues, I think he is the authority > on that and he can decide to share or not to share. I have no desire to > scrutinize his (or anyone's) issues publicly or even privately. (I'm not > saying you want to do that either.)I have enough on my issue plate > already. > > > > Thanks for the response! > > > > Gekkos are cool. > > > > And so is this beetle dude/dudette...Chrysolina cerealis > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477780895608805&set=a.2608163173\ > 05265.74666.187139094672988&type=1 > > ************* > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: > > > > > > 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 jchwelch@ > > > 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.àJust a couple of points: > > > > I don't know that Dr. Oz is unwilling to disagree with > Oprah.àDo you know that for a fact?àHe seems pretty > independent to me. > > > > > > > > I don't know enough about mantras to comment on that.àAnd > I don't think TM is superior because anyone said so.àI think it > is unique in the effortlessness of it process.àMy own logic > tells me that this effortlessness is what makes it the best meditation > technique that I know of.àI 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.àSo there is nothing for me to reconcile.àI > can easily believe that a smart, successful and healthy person might > practice Christianity.à> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > Well it makes it grosser.àBut grosser is not > plainer.àAnd it has nothing to do with taking the word of a > famous, rich person.àIt has to do with taking the word of an > intelligent, independent person who also happens to be rich and > famous.àThat's what you keep avoiding, isn't it?àThat > Dr. Oz is smart and completely independent of TMO.àI'm guessing > that's really what you can't reconcile with all your beliefs about > TM.àThat someone really smart and successful and knowledgeable > about health would choose to practice it. àà> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > What I notice is how you evade the real point.àWhich I'll > elucidate by saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.à> 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.àAnd 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > Michael, I'm genuinely curious:àhow 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?àI'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.àà> > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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 ââ¬" and I do > not use that word lightly ââ¬" 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-me\ > ditation.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? > > > > > > > > > >
