--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "george_deforest" > <george.deforest@> wrote: > > [...] > > > this whole article is very inspiring, and really must be seen > > > with accompanying photo's and such. > > > > > > article/newsletter url: > > > http://www.enlightenedsentencing.org/news-fall-2006.htm > > > > > > including this sweet pic of indian pandit boys doing yagya: > > > > > > http://www.enlightenedsentencing.org/mahapatra-pundits.htm > > > > Yeah, the only sticking point between Farokh and the TMO was > > the crowns because this would offend the conservative judges > > he was working with... > > > > As I said, the whole thing with Farokh changing the name is > > an ego thing on HIS part. He certainly could have gotten > > David Lynch or some other wealthy donor to foot the bill if > > money was the issue, and as this photo appears on his website, > > it certainly is NOT because of the crowns, despite what > > Farokh said. > > I don't know anything about all this Farokh infighting > that some of you TM people seem to obsess over, and > don't really care to know about it. > > My question is more fundamental -- do you *really* think > it's a good idea to present meditation as something that > people are SENTENCED TO? > > I mean really...think this through... >
As part of a parole or equivalent agreement? Sure, as long as it is voluntary and there is a compliance component of some kind. If the sentence is mandatory, then its silly. You can't prove that someone is meditating anyway, unless you hook them up to machines constantly.
