--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2005, at 11:25 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:20 PM, sparaig wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- L B Shriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> LB, your last post in this thread was truncated, so I
> >>>> couldn't include it, but I wanted to compliment you on
> >>>> your observations. As you note, science is, at its
> >>>> best, an international, public discourse. I can
> >>>> understand MIU's reluctance to hand over the raw data
> >>>> for reasons that have nothing to do with this
> >>>> discourse. All movement research is for one purpose
> >>>> only: to promote the teaching of TM/TM-Siddhis. It's
> >>>> for PR only. Those in charge, MMY, aren't interested
> >>>> in developing a coherent theory of the field effects
> >>>> of consciousness. They just want to sell TM. The MIU
> >>>> researchers won't hand over the raw data because the
> >>>> ME is very weak, almost noise, not pattern. It can
> >>>> easily be shown not to exist using alternative, and
> >>>> more traditional, statistical methods used in this
> >>>> type of research.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You may be correct, but your evidence of this is...?
> >>
> >> Wake Up and smell the Raja's Cup. It's been in front of us all 
> >> time.
> >>
> >> How could we miss it?
> >
> > And if Vaj says there's been evidence in front of
> > us all the time, by golly, it must be true.
> >
> > Say, Vaj, when are you going to get around to giving
> > us the URLs of all those Web sites you said there were
> > that link "Do nothing and accomplish everything" to
> > get-rich-quick schemes?
> Right after you deposit the 175 dollars an hour research fee into 
> PayPay account. A two hour retainer should be sufficient.
> Really, anyone who spent time in the movement and had NOT come 
> people trying to hatch get-rich-quick schemes, just hasn't been 
> I can't tell you how many schemes and dreams I saw Gary Osterlund 
> Jack Normand try to hatch. Jack even started a course on it and 
> us to attend his seminar. He thought he was enlightened at the time.
> And they were convinced that enlightenment and wealth went hand in 

If you're a householder, why wouldn't it be that way? ENlightenment 
should mean (in my understanding) that your dharma is in harmony with 
your lifestyle, and for a householder, comfort, wealth (to some 
extent), and other signs of relative success should be obvious.

THat doesn't mean that the wealthy should be enlightened, but that 
someone who is enlightened within the householder tradition should 
be "well off" at least...

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to