Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
No, some of Barry's former posts are probably correct, in that TM itself is a small matter, that contrary to what Hagelin and Lynch claim, few people are interested in, that it is a dying movement - it just irritates me that Lynch and cronies are attempting to defraud a whole new generation of marks. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice, that it once was. Better to find another obsessive - Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no time!! You could call it, Two little pricks, and the TM balloon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: No, some of Barry's former posts are probably correct, in that TM itself is a small matter, that contrary to what Hagelin and Lynch claim, few people are interested in, that it is a dying movement - it just irritates me that Lynch and cronies are attempting to defraud a whole new generation of marks. I think what Jimbo means by drying up is that those of us who have any brains have stopped treating the diehard TM-defenders here as if they were worth reply- ing to, or even reading, unless we see them quoted in posts like this one. Having nothing to say on their own, they *live* to draw people into confrontations with them, so that they can parrot the things they've been taught to parrot about TM and Maharishi, and thus feel as if they're doing something dharmic, or that they, in fact, have any meaningful existence. I don't know about you, Michael, but I don't believe it is even *possible* to nudge the diehards in the direction of accepting the real nature of the organization they're defending. Too much of their own egos is attached to the notion of I'm too smart to ever have been deceived by a cult to even utter the C-word. And too much of their self- esteem and self-image is attached to how other diehards see them to ever deviate from the Dogma Dharma. So I limit myself these days to poking subtle fun at them to see how they'll react, as I did by posting the sheep dip photo in response to the Holy dip line being used in a TMO propaganda piece. Interestingly enough, they *do* seem to always react -- whether I poke fun at them or whether I do not. Again, I suspect this has more to do with not having anything of their own to say than anything else. Caught in reactive mode, they NEED someone or something to react TO. Cool, I guess. I consider them my own private wind-up toys, and from time to time continue to wind them up. As for the TMO and its future, as you say I don't believe that it has much of one. It really CAN'T sell its products directly to end users any more, because NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN THEM. Even casual observers who might be interested in meditation have figured out that TM is the *least* hip form of meditation in the marketplace, while being by far the most expensive. So the TMO follows the lead established by Maharishi, and doesn't even bother trying to market to end users any more. Their entire pitch is to governments and institutions and wealthy individuals, hoping to lure them into contributing to a worthy cause so that people at risk can be taught TM in their names. And such a pitch will work for them...for a while. It has certainly worked for the Christian organizations who have used Help us save orphans in Africa and similar dodges to beg for donations for so many years. If that's the way they want to present themselves to the world while pocketing most of the monies raised, I say let them. Karma, dudes. The only thing that still causes me to roll my eyes are the head-in-the-sand levels of DENIAL still clung to by people who claim to have had their creative intelligence enhanced by TM all these years. But again, if that's the way they wish to be perceived by the world, let them. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice, that it once was. Better to find another obsessive - Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no time!! You could call it, Two little pricks, and the TM balloon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
the bird: human kind Cannot bear very much reality. Amen, this is my sermon for this Sunday morning. God Bless you Barry Wright.) From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice, that it once was. Better to find another obsessive - Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no time!! You could call it, Two little pricks, and the TM balloon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique.ÃÂ That's it's primary purpose.ÃÂ And I am certain thatÃÂ you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, althoughÃÂ I can't even remember what they are.ÃÂ Massage maybe.ÃÂ Let's take massage.ÃÂ What do you suppose would be the negativeÃÂ effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.ÃÂ Just for fun, take a shot at those first.ÃÂ I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: No, some of Barry's former posts are probably correct, in that TM itself is a small matter, that contrary to what Hagelin and Lynch claim, few people are interested in, that it is a dying movement - it just irritates me that Lynch and cronies are attempting to defraud a whole new generation of marks. I think what Jimbo means by drying up is that those of us who have any brains have stopped treating the diehard TM-defenders here as if they were worth reply- ing to, or even reading, unless we see them quoted in posts like this one. No, actually DrD meant what he said. If you look at the Post Count list, the only diehard TM-bashers posting here any more are Barry, Michael, and Salyavin. And Barry's posts are so demented these days that he just gets made fun of. He's a toothless old man with delusions of grandeur who mistakes being laughed at for his having pushed buttons. Having nothing to say on their own, they *live* to draw people into confrontations with them, so that they can parrot the things they've been taught to parrot about TM and Maharishi, and thus feel as if they're doing something dharmic, or that they, in fact, have any meaningful existence. I don't know about you, Michael, but I don't believe it is even *possible* to nudge the diehards in the direction of accepting the real nature of the organization they're defending. Too much of their own egos is attached to the notion of I'm too smart to ever have been deceived by a cult to even utter the C-word. And too much of their self- esteem and self-image is attached to how other diehards see them to ever deviate from the Dogma Dharma. So I limit myself these days to poking subtle fun at them to see how they'll react, as I did by posting the sheep dip photo in response to the Holy dip line being used in a TMO propaganda piece. Interestingly enough, they *do* seem to always react -- whether I poke fun at them or whether I do not. Again, I suspect this has more to do with not having anything of their own to say than anything else. Caught in reactive mode, they NEED someone or something to react TO. Cool, I guess. I consider them my own private wind-up toys, and from time to time continue to wind them up. As for the TMO and its future, as you say I don't believe that it has much of one. It really CAN'T sell its products directly to end users any more, because NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN THEM. Even casual observers who might be interested in meditation have figured out that TM is the *least* hip form of meditation in the marketplace, while being by far the most expensive. So the TMO follows the lead established by Maharishi, and doesn't even bother trying to market to end users any more. Their entire pitch is to governments and institutions and wealthy individuals, hoping to lure them into contributing to a worthy cause so that people at risk can be taught TM in their names. And such a pitch will work for them...for a while. It has certainly worked for the Christian organizations who have used Help us save orphans in Africa and similar dodges to beg for donations for so many years. If that's the way they want to present themselves to the world while pocketing most of the monies raised, I say let them. Karma, dudes. The only thing that still causes me to roll my eyes are the head-in-the-sand levels of DENIAL still clung to by people who claim to have had their creative intelligence enhanced by TM all these years. But again, if that's the way they wish to be perceived by the world, let them. From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice, that it once was. Better to find another obsessive - Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no time!! You could call it, Two little pricks, and the TM balloon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Barry is SO nasty these days when my jokes on him, hit home. Now their forum can read *Three* little pricks and the TM balloon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: No, some of Barry's former posts are probably correct, in that TM itself is a small matter, that contrary to what Hagelin and Lynch claim, few people are interested in, that it is a dying movement - it just irritates me that Lynch and cronies are attempting to defraud a whole new generation of marks. I think what Jimbo means by drying up is that those of us who have any brains have stopped treating the diehard TM-defenders here as if they were worth reply- ing to, or even reading, unless we see them quoted in posts like this one. No, actually DrD meant what he said. If you look at the Post Count list, the only diehard TM-bashers posting here any more are Barry, Michael, and Salyavin. And Barry's posts are so demented these days that he just gets made fun of. He's a toothless old man with delusions of grandeur who mistakes being laughed at for his having pushed buttons. Having nothing to say on their own, they *live* to draw people into confrontations with them, so that they can parrot the things they've been taught to parrot about TM and Maharishi, and thus feel as if they're doing something dharmic, or that they, in fact, have any meaningful existence. I don't know about you, Michael, but I don't believe it is even *possible* to nudge the diehards in the direction of accepting the real nature of the organization they're defending. Too much of their own egos is attached to the notion of I'm too smart to ever have been deceived by a cult to even utter the C-word. And too much of their self- esteem and self-image is attached to how other diehards see them to ever deviate from the Dogma Dharma. So I limit myself these days to poking subtle fun at them to see how they'll react, as I did by posting the sheep dip photo in response to the Holy dip line being used in a TMO propaganda piece. Interestingly enough, they *do* seem to always react -- whether I poke fun at them or whether I do not. Again, I suspect this has more to do with not having anything of their own to say than anything else. Caught in reactive mode, they NEED someone or something to react TO. Cool, I guess. I consider them my own private wind-up toys, and from time to time continue to wind them up. As for the TMO and its future, as you say I don't believe that it has much of one. It really CAN'T sell its products directly to end users any more, because NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN THEM. Even casual observers who might be interested in meditation have figured out that TM is the *least* hip form of meditation in the marketplace, while being by far the most expensive. So the TMO follows the lead established by Maharishi, and doesn't even bother trying to market to end users any more. Their entire pitch is to governments and institutions and wealthy individuals, hoping to lure them into contributing to a worthy cause so that people at risk can be taught TM in their names. And such a pitch will work for them...for a while. It has certainly worked for the Christian organizations who have used Help us save orphans in Africa and similar dodges to beg for donations for so many years. If that's the way they want to present themselves to the world while pocketing most of the monies raised, I say let them. Karma, dudes. The only thing that still causes me to roll my eyes are the head-in-the-sand levels of DENIAL still clung to by people who claim to have had their creative intelligence enhanced by TM all these years. But again, if that's the way they wish to be perceived by the world, let them. From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice, that it once was. Better to find another obsessive - Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no time!! You could call it, Two little pricks, and the TM balloon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
You don't tug on Superman's cape You don't spit in the wind You don't pull the mask on the old Lone Ranger And you don't mess around with...Doc (-: From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 8:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol --- 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. 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=477780895608805set=a.260816317305265.74666.187139094672988type=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.Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait. Careful Steve you don't, for one moment, want to sound like Barry. Just stay your sensitive, sweet, sort of gullible self. I'll just ignore that last sentence and pretend you changed to the wrong 'channel' instead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: Careful Steve you don't, for one moment, want to sound like Barry. Just stay your sensitive, sweet, sort of gullible self. I'll just ignore that last sentence and pretend you changed to the wrong 'channel' instead. I don't know what got into me. I guess I was groggy or something. Channelling Barry like that. I'm glad you caught it, and nipped it in the bud. What got into me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Oh, you're wonderful. Thanks for answering my question. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. And the stupidity of the people who knew better and let the hucksters hold sway because they felt refreshed after closing their eyes. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice, that it once was. Better to find another obsessive - Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no time!! You could call it, Two little pricks, and the TM balloon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Now that you've casually mentioned your riding crop technique, your words carry extra weight around here, Ann. However, at least one member of our riding party, the one going dutch, if you catch my drift, is actually looking forward to his next stinging reference to you, so that he may feel your reply in kind... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what they are. Massage maybe. Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those first. I'll wait. Careful Steve you don't, for one moment, want to sound like Barry. Just stay your sensitive, sweet, sort of gullible self. I'll just ignore that last sentence and pretend you changed to the wrong 'channel' instead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. --Martin Luther King Jr. And the stupidity of the people who knew better and let the hucksters hold sway because they felt refreshed after closing their eyes. Michael, you trivialize MLK and his cause when you associate your statement with his.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Michael, Are you crying when you write this? You must feel absolutely helpless that the good people of the world are not heeding your call. So, now we are at the greatest period of social transition. Not even I knew M was that powerful. And I sort of dropped out, or at least stepped back many years ago. M is tormenting you from the grave. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. And the stupidity of the people who knew better and let the hucksters hold sway because they felt refreshed after closing their eyes. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique.àThat's it's primary purpose.àAnd I am certain thatàyou would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, althoughàI can't even remember what they are.àMassage maybe.àLet's take massage.àWhat do you suppose would be the negativeàeffects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.àJust for fun, take a shot at those first.àI'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
forgot this --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Michael, Are you crying when you write this? You must feel absolutely helpless that the good people of the world are not heeding your call. So, now we are at the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition. Not even I knew M was that powerful. And I sort of dropped out, or at least stepped back many years ago. M is tormenting you from the grave. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. And the stupidity of the people who knew better and let the hucksters hold sway because they felt refreshed after closing their eyes. From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance. From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both sides. In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not know what Marshy was. It's a relaxation technique.àThat's it's primary purpose.àAnd I am certain thatàyou would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions. Let's examine the modalities you recommend, althoughàI can't even remember what they are.àMassage maybe.àLet's take massage.àWhat do you suppose would be the negativeàeffects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.àJust for fun, take a shot at those first.àI'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy
Issues are what we all have. Our past, present, and future relationship
with the TMO is the main fare here. When people talk about issues in
a general sense I, (and I think most others) know what is being
referred to.
Verdict: Scolding nullified. Repeat first down.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@...
wrote:
Have you ever asked yourself whether it might be a good
idea not to suggest that someone you're disagreeing with
has deeper issues without specifying what you thought
the deeper issues were?
If you ever did, I can see why you'd have decided against
it. After all, deeper issues implies that the person is
fucked up in some way, and if you leave it at that, you
don't have to risk being wrong by proposing anything
specific. You don't even have to have anything specific
in mind; it's just an all-purpose putdown.
But you *do* run the risk of folks thinking you were
implying something really nasty, like, in this case,
an accusation of racism.
All things considered, I'd advise being straightforward
and specific rather than vague and insinuating. It avoids
misunderstandings and bad feelings.
You didn't intend to create bad feelings, now, did you?
From: authfriend authfriend@
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: 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? I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother probably smoked during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my three sisters. That's what coming to mind right now. Slighted? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't protect you in the womb you are more likely to protect others now?! Did you feel like you craved a Marlborough when you emerged? As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel might be being singled out and challenged. Not a terrible character flaw but in this case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is likely to bring up in conversation. I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here, especially with someone as reasonable as Carol.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: 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? I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother probably smoked during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my three sisters. That's what coming to mind right now. Slighted? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't protect you in the womb you are more likely to protect others now?! Did you feel like you craved a Marlborough when you emerged? That would have been a Kent and vodka martini. As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel might be being singled out and challenged. Okay, I do get riled up when I see something akin to bullying*** Not that we are seeing bullying here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge that. *** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in this case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is likely to bring up in conversation.Uh, really has nothing to do with Share fighting her own battles. She doesn't need my help in that regard. I thought Share brought up a salient point that Carol chose not to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. Oz would choose to embrace TM. I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. Nor do I. But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider possibilities, choosing not include perhaps the most reasonable explanation. As these things go, I would call it a small infraction, but I chose to comment on it anyway. And I accept that people might feel I am full of sh*t about it. Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here, especially with someone as reasonable as Carol. You will have to take that up with Share. I think she weighs the cost/reward ratio of who she interacts with. Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
I have to admit it is weird when I'm absent from FFL for some time and return to find a discussion about me going on. Anyway, thank you to both Ann and Steve. I find Carol very reasonable and also thought she missed a crucial point of mine. Which seems like a long time ago and I can't even remember what it was (-: Also want to say that when turq has been going at me the way he has been the last few days, I appreciate all the support that's offered by others. Then when Steve comes along in his masculine and gentle way, it reminds me that it's ok to be feminine. That means a lot to me. BUT...I also really liked when Steve took up for turq. Because his buddies generally take up for turq on the intellectual level, which is fine and good. But Steve took up for turq on an emotional level. And I still believe that those with the toughest shells are also those with the softest insides. Honestly folks, the turq lives with 3 other adults and a child! Could he do so and be the curmudgeon he often appears to be here?! From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: 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? I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother probably smoked during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my three sisters. That's what coming to mind right now. Slighted? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't protect you in the womb you are more likely to protect others now?! Did you feel like you craved a Marlborough when you emerged? That would have been a Kent and vodka martini. As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel might be being singled out and challenged. Okay, I do get riled up when I see something akin to bullying*** Not that we are seeing bullying here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge that. *** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in this case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is likely to bring up in conversation. Uh, really has nothing to do with Share fighting her own battles. She doesn't need my help in that regard. I thought Share brought up a salient point that Carol chose not to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. Oz would choose to embrace TM. I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. Nor do I. But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider possibilities, choosing not include perhaps the most reasonable explanation. As these things go, I would call it a small infraction, but I chose to comment on it anyway. And I accept that people might feel I am full of sh*t about it. Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here, especially with someone as reasonable as Carol. You will have to take that up with Share. I think she weighs the cost/reward ratio of who she interacts with. Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
I thought Elephant Man was one of the most touching movies I've ever seen. And The Straight Story was quirky, but in a midwestern, down home kind of way. I also liked it a lot. I'm not familiar with Lynch's other works and am not drawn to explore. Speaking as a former movie reviewer for the Fairfield Weekly Reader ha ha, I think a lot of movie critics get jaded by watching so many movies. Maybe their neural pathways get overloaded so that only the most startling and hyper images even make a dent on their awareness. BTW, Bhairitu, I used vata pitta kapha to critique movies! After I stopped, people came up to me and told me they missed my ayurvedic reviews (-: It's not about what grabs our attention. It's about what we choose to focus our attention on. I admit I get a little thrill, as a previous high school English teacher, when I end a sentence with a preposition. And then I remember Churchill's great quote about this rule: Madam, this is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: he became a legend because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie, it's actually good. This has been a problem with the film industry since the beginning of movies, and contributed to the fleeting fame of people like Jean Luc Godard (who was always merely flashy, never brilliant). Some people actually like David Lynch, and even I will admit that he did a pretty good job with the real, four- hour version of Dune and with The Straight Story. But IMO (and according to someone I used to know who was his personal secretary) he's LAZY, and tends to fall back on being flashy and weird rather than being actually creative, because he knows that among a certain contingent of critics, that'll get him good reviews. It's the same phenomenon in my opinion as those who fall for flash (or occult pushing it out) and think it's charisma. Lacking discrimination, they just glom onto whatever flashes them out and grabs their attention, and then *retroactively* try to make up reasons why it grabbed their attention. The reasons are never real; they're excuses for having no discrimination. As for why Nabby likes him, I thought MJ (or Sal, whoever said it) got it right. If there were a person on the street selling little dolls made out of dogshit and someone told Nabby that the person was a TMer, he'd call them an artist. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Hi Carol, that has got to be the most beautiful bug I have ever seen! Thanks so much for including him (-: My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current moment thinking and it's helpful to be aware of that. Especially if we're wanting to communicate convincingly to others, which Michael has said is his goal. From: Carol jchwe...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol 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. 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=477780895608805set=a.260816317305265.74666.187139094672988type=1 * --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy
But I think at least once before, and maybe twice, MJ said that Dr. Oz didn't
want to or was afraid to disagree with Oprah. As for issues or traumas, I
saying that if someone can't move on from some circumstance or event in their
past, it means the trauma is still present in them and that will affect their
communications. It's not meant as a put down. It's meant as an honest
response to someone, trying to explain why I might take what they say with a
grain of salt.
It's something I'm trying to learn too. How to work around my issues and
communicate in an effective way. I didn't intend to upset Michael. I think
turq is the only person I consciously try to bother. Mainly by bringing up
jyotish on a regular basis.
From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:13 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
Hey Judy, thanks for the article on Dr. Oz. Totally
fascinating. So much ambition for so much of his life. Ooo, I
would LOVE to see his jyotish chart. I would guess Sun either
in Aries or Leo. Very strong Sun. Big ego. It's always
fascinating to see ambition and idealism combined in one
person. It's like a balancing act. Which aspect will win on
any given day? He is definitely on a mission to help people.
Most importantly to help Dr. Oz.
When I was talking about issues with reference to MJ, race
was farthest from my mind. I tend to be very psychological
in my outlook and those were the kind of issues I was
referring to. Traumas from childhood, etc.
Traumas from childhood. Hmm. Michael said Oz was afraid to
go against Oprah because Michael had a childhood trauma?
What could that have been, do you think, and how would
that have led him to such a conclusion? I mean, the point
he actually made--that Oz owes Oprah for having given him
his own show--seemed entirely reasonable on its own terms.
Have you ever asked yourself whether it might be a good
idea not to suggest that someone you're disagreeing with
has deeper issues without specifying what you thought
the deeper issues were?
If you ever did, I can see why you'd have decided against
it. After all, deeper issues implies that the person is
fucked up in some way, and if you leave it at that, you
don't have to risk being wrong by proposing anything
specific. You don't even have to have anything specific
in mind; it's just an all-purpose putdown.
But you *do* run the risk of folks thinking you were
implying something really nasty, like, in this case,
an accusation of racism.
All things considered, I'd advise being straightforward
and specific rather than vague and insinuating. It avoids
misunderstandings and bad feelings.
You didn't intend to create bad feelings, now, did you?
From: authfriend
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I have to admit it is weird when I'm absent from FFL for some time and return to find a discussion about me going on. You were only 'gone' for 14 hours. Your last post was yesterday at approximately 5pm West Coast time. I was thinking of you when writing the post but I was more interested in Steve's tendency to defend and protect. He is rather gallant that way.  Anyway, thank you to both Ann and Steve. I find Carol very reasonable and also thought she missed a crucial point of mine. Which seems like a long time ago and I can't even remember what it was (-: Also want to say that when turq has been going at me the way he has been the last few days, I appreciate all the support that's offered by others. Then when Steve comes along in his masculine and gentle way, it reminds me that it's ok to be feminine. That means a lot to me. Masculine and gentle are okay in my book too. BUT...I also really liked when Steve took up for turq. Because his buddies generally take up for turq on the intellectual level, which is fine and good. But Steve took up for turq on an emotional level. And I still believe that those with the toughest shells are also those with the softest insides. I think we're all soft on the inside.  Honestly folks, the turq lives with 3 other adults and a child! Could he do so and be the curmudgeon he often appears to be here?! 2D vs 3D life. No difference in my evaluation. The angels see everything we do, no matter where we are!   From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: 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? I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother probably smoked during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my three sisters. That's what coming to mind right now. Slighted? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't protect you in the womb you are more likely to protect others now?! Did you feel like you craved a Marlborough when you emerged? That would have been a Kent and vodka martini. As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel might be being singled out and challenged. Okay, I do get riled up when I see something akin to bullying***  Not that we are seeing bullying here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge that. *** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in this case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is likely to bring up in conversation. Uh, really has nothing to do with Share fighting her own battles.  She doesn't need my help in that regard.  I thought Share brought up a salient point that Carol chose not to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. Oz would choose to embrace TM.  I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. Nor do I.  But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider possibilities, choosing not include  perhaps the most reasonable explanation.  As these things go, I would call it a small infraction,  but I chose to comment on it anyway.  And I accept that people might feel I am full of sh*t about it. Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here, especially with someone as reasonable as Carol. You will have to take that up with Share.  I think she weighs the cost/reward ratio of who she interacts with.  Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here. Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Steve stated: As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it. I'll have to ponder it...regarding having a selective bias. I possibly (probably?) do have selective biases. But I think all humans have those; it's a matter of determining which ones they helpful or not helpful in any given circumstance. Thanks again... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: 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? I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother probably smoked during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my three sisters. That's what coming to mind right now. As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Share stated: My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current moment thinking and it's helpful to be aware of that. I agree. Thinking back, this discourse got started with me when I brought upthe subject of that because Oz endorses TM that must mean that TM is a good thing (when other equally intelligent people have other opinions) with the comparison of Collins as a scientist endorsing Christianity as a good thing (when other equally intelligent people have other opinions). That was all. And my communication is probably not the greatest. I'm not an academic or a debater, and never will be. And I don't excel at clever comebacks and such. I find it draining...and moreso after having carpal tunnel surgery on February 18. Typing is still a bit laborious. Yes..that bug is beautiful. :) *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Hi Carol, that has got to be the most beautiful bug I have ever seen! Thanks so much for including him (-: My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current moment thinking and it's helpful to be aware of that. Especially if we're wanting to communicate convincingly to others, which Michael has said is his goal. From: Carol jchwelch@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  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. 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=477780895608805set=a.260816317305265.74666.187139094672988type=1 * --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.àOf course the fact that Dr. Oz practices TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it.àJust as Fr Keating's Batgap interview does not negate my somewhat bad experiences with the Catholic Church.àBut again, I'm not continuing to speak against Catholicism, etc.àWhereas Michael does continue to speak against TM, etc. and seems to have quite a charge when he does so.àFrom my own experience with charges, I'd say there's a deeper issue going on that just what appears on the surface.àJust yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.àThis was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to disagree with Oprah.àThis latter statement especially indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present.àI've got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing.àBut I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me that there are other deeper issues present.àAnd I realize when people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue present.àIf someone's energy feels off in either direction, then I take their opinions with a bigger grain of salt. So I have been
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
BTW...thanks for the kind words Ann. I miss some posts on here and sometimes catch up a bit later...and still will miss some posts. Cheers! :) ~carol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: 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? I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother probably smoked during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my three sisters. That's what coming to mind right now. Slighted? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't protect you in the womb you are more likely to protect others now?! Did you feel like you craved a Marlborough when you emerged? That would have been a Kent and vodka martini. As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel might be being singled out and challenged. Okay, I do get riled up when I see something akin to bullying*** Not that we are seeing bullying here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge that. *** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in this case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is likely to bring up in conversation.Uh, really has nothing to do with Share fighting her own battles. She doesn't need my help in that regard. I thought Share brought up a salient point that Carol chose not to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. Oz would choose to embrace TM. I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. Nor do I. But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider possibilities, choosing not include perhaps the most reasonable explanation. As these things go, I would call it a small infraction, but I chose to comment on it anyway. And I accept that people might feel I am full of sh*t about it. Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here, especially with someone as reasonable as Carol. You will have to take that up with Share. I think she weighs the cost/reward ratio of who she interacts with. Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Thanks for sharing that Judy. Interesting article. I have never watched Oz's
show or really read much at all by or about him. Interesting that the one
surgeon that knows Oz (I think it was a surgeon) would not recommend someone
going to Oz for surgery.
I wonder where Dr. Oz his wife will be 10 years from now?
***
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
PS: If I were to base my opinion of Oz by what is in this article, I'd lean
toward he is another snake in a suit. Not saying he is, but this article leaves
me with that impression.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@... wrote:
Thanks for sharing that Judy. Interesting article. I have never watched Oz's
show or really read much at all by or about him. Interesting that the one
surgeon that knows Oz (I think it was a surgeon) would not recommend someone
going to Oz for surgery.
I wonder where Dr. Oz his wife will be 10 years from now?
***
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: snip I didn't intend to upset Michael. I think turq is the only person I consciously try to bother. Mainly by bringing up jyotish on a regular basis. Beautiful. Prolonged smile!
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
I am sorry to hear about your carpal tunnel. It runs in my family and my mom had it, as well as cousin. I am not sure if one of my sisters has it or not. But it sure is persistent, and in my cousin's case there doesn't seem to be anything he can do to alleviate, or correct it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@... wrote: Share stated: My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current moment thinking and it's helpful to be aware of that. I agree. Thinking back, this discourse got started with me when I brought upthe subject of that because Oz endorses TM that must mean that TM is a good thing (when other equally intelligent people have other opinions) with the comparison of Collins as a scientist endorsing Christianity as a good thing (when other equally intelligent people have other opinions). That was all. And my communication is probably not the greatest. I'm not an academic or a debater, and never will be. And I don't excel at clever comebacks and such. I find it draining...and moreso after having carpal tunnel surgery on February 18. Typing is still a bit laborious. Yes..that bug is beautiful. :) *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hi Carol, that has got to be the most beautiful bug I have ever seen! Thanks so much for including him (-: My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current moment thinking and it's helpful to be aware of that. Especially if we're wanting to communicate convincingly to others, which Michael has said is his goal. From: Carol jchwelch@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol  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. 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=477780895608805set=a.2608163173\ 05265.74666.187139094672988type=1 * --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.àOf course the fact that Dr. Oz practices TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it.àJust as Fr Keating's Batgap interview does not negate my somewhat bad experiences with the Catholic Church.àBut again, I'm not continuing to speak against Catholicism, etc.àWhereas Michael does continue to speak against TM, etc. and seems to have quite a charge when he does so.àFrom my own experience with charges, I'd say there's a deeper issue going on that just what appears on the surface.àJust yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.àThis was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to disagree with Oprah.àThis latter statement especially indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present.àI've got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing.àBut I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me that there are other
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
emptybill: They know even less about the differences in basic view between Zen, Tantra, Mahamudra and Dzogchen... According to the Sage Patanjali, Raja Yoga has nothing to do with 'union with the gods', but has everything to do with 'isolation from prakriti'. That is, the 'cessation of the fluctuations of the mindstuff'. To Patanjali, the Royal Yoga is the attainment of freedom, based on the sheer willpower of the individual. The Sage Kapila said that success in attaining freedom from suffering is found in individual willpower to knowledge; individual freedom is not the result of any source of power outside one's own body-mind. It is obvious, to even a casual seeker, that the term 'god' and 'yoga' are contradictory. You can't have freewill and be under the power of another; that would be a contradiction in terms, would it not? We are either free or we are not; if free, then there is no need for yoga practice. If we are not free, then by what means are we to free ourselves? It's that simple - there is either other-power or self-power. Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, objects, and ideas with one another; knowledge of the cries of all creatures comes through perfect discipline of the distinctions between them (YS 3.17). So, ask yourself 'who am I' and then look inside yourself for the answer, inside your own mind, and apply common sense and intelligence based on your own experience and reasoning. Now, having tested and known your Self by yourself, know such to be wise and true, not by mere speculation, hearsay or because you read it, overheard it or were told it, but because you, yourself, having known it, experienced it, and confirmed it, found it to be wise and true. So, let's review: The gods, if they exist, are subject to the same laws of karma as humans, and when their store of karma runs out they will experience rebirth just like you and I. According to the law of cause and effect, whatever goes up must come down - that is, human excrement always flows down stream - the second law of thermodynamics. The Shakya, Patanjali, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Chaitanya, and Vallabah and Maharishi all agree on this. In contrast to the gods, a Yogin, that is, one who has attained Freedom and Immortality, has broken the chain that binds him or her to the law of karma: a Yogin is free, liberated, that is, he has attained 'Siddhi' and he is a fully realized master of his own Self. A Yogin is not bound by time, neither is he bound by the restrictions of caste or religious conventions. A Yogin, having mastered himself, by himself, does not see ritual acts as the saving grace, yet he acts, due to the propensities still functioning within his mortal coil. A Yogin is liberated while yet living, a 'jivan mukti'. Being liberated, a Yogin is not bound by the notion of duality, thinking, I do this, this is my body, this is my soul, this is my self... etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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. 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=477780895608805set=a.260816317305265.74666.187139094672988type=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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- 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? Dr. Oz on why he uses and endorse Transcendental Meditation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1M4GwIbKjM
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
Poor MJ. If the TMO decides to sue him for lies and slander he will loose his trailer. Michael Jackson: Let 'em come on! Just pay off the student loans fer chrissakes and maybe they'll leave you alone. LoL! And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up, but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are negative. Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK if someone gets an article published it goes out on the gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put out before the cynics get find it. It would be smarter, it seems to me, for the devotees to comment *after* the cynics. Wouldn't work in the Grauniad case as the first comments stay at the top of the list. Well, but then as you read the comments, your last impression is of the positive ones rather than the negative ones. But if there are a lot of comments, you're right, because folks would be unlikely to read all of them and might not even *get* to the positive ones. Maybe half the team should post right away, and the other half after the cynics are done? Perhaps the NYT list will have some more positive remarks near the top by tomorrow? How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
Thanks Nab! Dr. Oz obviously does specifically endorse. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... 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? Dr. Oz on why he uses and endorse Transcendental Meditation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1M4GwIbKjM
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- 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. 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=477780895608805set=a.2608163173\ 05265.74666.187139094672988type=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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
Hooboy. I think I hear a stretching sound.snap!
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
Hooboy. I think I hear a stretching sound.snap!
Better fix it before your pants fall down.
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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.àFrom: 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 àLet'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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@ wrote: snip 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. Not only do you have no clue as to whether Carol has any preconceived notions, let alone what they might be if she does, but your attempted scolding of her here makes no sense whatsoever, either with regard to what Share said or with regard to what Carol said. The two of them aren't disagreeing, yet you have stupidly leaped to defend Share as if you thought Carol was attacking her.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy
Hey Judy, thanks for the article on Dr. Oz. Totally fascinating. So much
ambition for so much of his life. Ooo, I would LOVE to see his jyotish chart.
I would guess Sun either in Aries or Leo. Very strong Sun. Big ego. It's
always fascinating to see ambition and idealism combined in one person. It's
like a balancing act. Which aspect will win on any given day? He is
definitely on a mission to help people.
When I was talking about issues with reference to MJ, race was farthest from my
mind. I tend to be very psychological in my outlook and those were the kind of
issues I was referring to. Traumas from childhood, etc.
From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:
Hey Judy, thanks for the article on Dr. Oz. Totally
fascinating. So much ambition for so much of his life. Ooo, I
would LOVE to see his jyotish chart. I would guess Sun either
in Aries or Leo. Very strong Sun. Big ego. It's always
fascinating to see ambition and idealism combined in one
person. It's like a balancing act. Which aspect will win on
any given day? He is definitely on a mission to help people.
Most importantly to help Dr. Oz.
When I was talking about issues with reference to MJ, race
was farthest from my mind. I tend to be very psychological
in my outlook and those were the kind of issues I was
referring to. Traumas from childhood, etc.
Traumas from childhood. Hmm. Michael said Oz was afraid to
go against Oprah because Michael had a childhood trauma?
What could that have been, do you think, and how would
that have led him to such a conclusion? I mean, the point
he actually made--that Oz owes Oprah for having given him
his own show--seemed entirely reasonable on its own terms.
Have you ever asked yourself whether it might be a good
idea not to suggest that someone you're disagreeing with
has deeper issues without specifying what you thought
the deeper issues were?
If you ever did, I can see why you'd have decided against
it. After all, deeper issues implies that the person is
fucked up in some way, and if you leave it at that, you
don't have to risk being wrong by proposing anything
specific. You don't even have to have anything specific
in mind; it's just an all-purpose putdown.
But you *do* run the risk of folks thinking you were
implying something really nasty, like, in this case,
an accusation of racism.
All things considered, I'd advise being straightforward
and specific rather than vague and insinuating. It avoids
misunderstandings and bad feelings.
You didn't intend to create bad feelings, now, did you?
From: authfriend authfriend@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
(snip)
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.
Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.
{snip)
I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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.àFrom: 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 àLet'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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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.àFrom: 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 àLet'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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Not only do you have no clue as to whether Carol has any preconceived notions, let alone what they might be if she does, but your attempted scolding of her here makes no sense whatsoever, either with regard to what Share said or with regard to what Carol said. The two of them aren't disagreeing, yet you have stupidly leaped to defend Share as if you thought Carol was attacking her. The Oracle Speaketh! The Grand Parser departs from the parsing when it suits her. Her petty vendettas will always take precedence. In a different setting she could and would make the exact opposite case. Loosen up that petticoat!
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: 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? I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother probably smoked during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my three sisters. That's what coming to mind right now. As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: he became a legend because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie, it's actually good. This has been a problem with the film industry since the beginning of movies, and contributed to the fleeting fame of people like Jean Luc Godard (who was always merely flashy, never brilliant). Some people actually like David Lynch, and even I will admit that he did a pretty good job with the real, four- hour version of Dune and with The Straight Story. But IMO (and according to someone I used to know who was his personal secretary) he's LAZY, and tends to fall back on being flashy and weird rather than being actually creative, because he knows that among a certain contingent of critics, that'll get him good reviews. It's the same phenomenon in my opinion as those who fall for flash (or occult pushing it out) and think it's charisma. Lacking discrimination, they just glom onto whatever flashes them out and grabs their attention, and then *retroactively* try to make up reasons why it grabbed their attention. The reasons are never real; they're excuses for having no discrimination. As for why Nabby likes him, I thought MJ (or Sal, whoever said it) got it right. If there were a person on the street selling little dolls made out of dogshit and someone told Nabby that the person was a TMer, he'd call them an artist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: he became a legend because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie, it's actually good. I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: he became a legend because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie, it's actually good. I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-) You mean the same French who believe that *Jerry Lewis* was one of the greatest geniuses of the cinema? :-) FYI, Lynch was awarded the *lowest* rank of Officer of the Legion of Honor -- Chevalier -- not the highest: The order has had five levels since the reign of King Louis XVIII, who restored the order in 1815. Since the reform, the following distinctions have existed : Three ranks : * Chevalier (knight) * Commandeur (Commander) * Grand Officier (Grand Officer) * Grand-Croix (Grand Cross) Others so honored include Celine Dion, David Cronenberg, and Bruce Willis. Even Michele Yeoh, Hong Kong martial arts movie star, was awarded a higher honor, Commandeur. :-) For the record, Jerry Lewis was honored as a Chevalier in 1984, but then elevated to the rank of Commandeur in 2006, so even *he* ranks higher than David Lynch in the discerning eye of the French. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up, but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are negative. Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK if someone gets an article published it goes out on the gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put out before the cynics get find it. It really backfired in the Guardian once when one of the regular commenters noticed that all the positive remarks were from people who joined within an hour or so of the article appearing. Made me laugh as I knew everyone and found it quite sweet that they had all got the hang of modern PR methods as they were usually not the most tech- nically minded people I'd ever met. So it's good that the NYT have posted negative stuff too as some of it is rather interesting. But the most interesting bit for me is that MMY didn't actually appear in person on the millionaires courses. I didn't know that, the big attraction for everyone of course was the personal intuition, but via TV! Very odd behaviour, and they kept it quiet very well. But what did the CPs think? I guess if you've handed over that much dosh to who knows where you must be used to the TMO way of operating. I would be well hacked off of course, but then I wouldn't have given them the cash in the first place so it's probably self selecting who gets disappointed with the misleading course details. Instructions finally came yesterday...better late than never I guess... Time-Sensitive: Your Help NeededPlease Leave Comments on New York Times Article on David Lynch TM Program February 24, 2013 Dear Certified Governors and Friends, Please take 1-2 minutes, this evening if possible, and leave a brief comment on the online New York Times article about David Lynch and the TM® program. It is one of their top featured articles today and highlighted as top news on their mobile front page. You can read the article and leave a comment here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-me\ ditation.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-m\ editation.html?pagewanted=all Several people who are unfamiliar with our program are leaving ill-informed comments which can easily mislead NY Times readers. We would like to show support for these powerful programs with a brief comment at the end of the article that supports the great works of the David Lynch Foundation and the TM program in a simple and balanced way. Thanks so much, Jai Guru Dev Sam and Melody Katz National Directors of Communication
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: he became a legend because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff As for why Nabby likes him, I thought MJ (or Sal, whoever said it) got it right. If there were a person on the street selling little dolls made out of dogshit and someone told Nabby that the person was a TMer, he'd call them an artist. :-) Let's be thankful that stale, old nitwits like the Turq was not around to critizise the now world famous artists. Without even a trace of talent for or understanding of art he'd be the first to label the art of Picasso, Van Gogh and others as trash and twisted. When in addition the artist create something FAR beyond the scope of his limited comprehension happens to be a TM'er we know the outcome. We've seen fools like him in action before; Hitler called art he did'nt like or made by jews entarted and had it banned and burned. That's what the Turq would have liked to do too if he wasn't an impotent old fart.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up, but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are negative. Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK if someone gets an article published it goes out on the gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put out before the cynics get find it. It really backfired in the Guardian once when one of the regular commenters noticed that all the positive remarks were from people who joined within an hour or so of the article appearing. Made me laugh as I knew everyone and found it quite sweet that they had all got the hang of modern PR methods as they were usually not the most tech- nically minded people I'd ever met. So it's good that the NYT have posted negative stuff too as some of it is rather interesting. But the most interesting bit for me is that MMY didn't actually appear in person on the millionaires courses. I didn't know that, the big attraction for everyone of course was the personal intuition, but via TV! Very odd behaviour, and they kept it quiet very well. But what did the CPs think? I guess if you've handed over that much dosh to who knows where you must be used to the TMO way of operating. I would be well hacked off of course, but then I wouldn't have given them the cash in the first place so it's probably self selecting who gets disappointed with the misleading course details. Instructions finally came yesterday...better late than never I guess... Time-Sensitive: Your Help NeededPlease Leave Comments on New York Times Article on David Lynch TM Program I got to go feed livestock and get to the Dome now for the morning meditation but if I had time to log in to the NYTimes I'd send them this to help out: Dear NYTimes readers, Scroll through and read the range of views and insight of the broader TM community about this article in the message replies that started in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/336181 -Buck February 24, 2013 Dear Certified Governors and Friends, Please take 1-2 minutes, this evening if possible, and leave a brief comment on the online New York Times article about David Lynch and the TM® program. It is one of their top featured articles today and highlighted as top news on their mobile front page. You can read the article and leave a comment here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-me\ ditation.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-m\ editation.html?pagewanted=all Several people who are unfamiliar with our program are leaving ill-informed comments which can easily mislead NY Times readers. We would like to show support for these powerful programs with a brief comment at the end of the article that supports the great works of the David Lynch Foundation and the TM program in a simple and balanced way. Thanks so much, Jai Guru Dev Sam and Melody Katz National Directors of Communication
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
God that is hilarious! Thank you for posting this Barry. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: he became a legend because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie, it's actually good. I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-) You mean the same French who believe that *Jerry Lewis* was one of the greatest geniuses of the cinema? :-) FYI, Lynch was awarded the *lowest* rank of Officer of the Legion of Honor -- Chevalier -- not the highest: The order has had five levels since the reign of King Louis XVIII, who restored the order in 1815. Since the reform, the following distinctions have existed : Three ranks : * Chevalier (knight) * Commandeur (Commander) * Grand Officier (Grand Officer) * Grand-Croix (Grand Cross) Others so honored include Celine Dion, David Cronenberg, and Bruce Willis. Even Michele Yeoh, Hong Kong martial arts movie star, was awarded a higher honor, Commandeur. :-) For the record, Jerry Lewis was honored as a Chevalier in 1984, but then elevated to the rank of Commandeur in 2006, so even *he* ranks higher than David Lynch in the discerning eye of the French. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
Thanks. I oughta come out with a line of coffee mugs, huh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound value. I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it goes for me. Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-) Doc, I really appreciate your writings about enlightenment. Spot on in my experience too. For a while I was thinking of saving your quips about this as aphorisms but I ain't got the time to edit that now. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
In my opinion, critics are the bottom feeders of the arts. Possessing no talent of their own, they pronounce judgement on entertainment they have enjoyed passively, but could never reproduce. The sole function for the paid ones, these days, is to function as money whores for the public to follow, pro or con. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: he became a legend because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie, it's actually good. I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-) You mean the same French who believe that *Jerry Lewis* was one of the greatest geniuses of the cinema? :-) FYI, Lynch was awarded the *lowest* rank of Officer of the Legion of Honor -- Chevalier -- not the highest: The order has had five levels since the reign of King Louis XVIII, who restored the order in 1815. Since the reform, the following distinctions have existed : Three ranks : * Chevalier (knight) * Commandeur (Commander) * Grand Officier (Grand Officer) * Grand-Croix (Grand Cross) Others so honored include Celine Dion, David Cronenberg, and Bruce Willis. Even Michele Yeoh, Hong Kong martial arts movie star, was awarded a higher honor, Commandeur. :-) For the record, Jerry Lewis was honored as a Chevalier in 1984, but then elevated to the rank of Commandeur in 2006, so even *he* ranks higher than David Lynch in the discerning eye of the French. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: God that is hilarious! Thank you for posting this Barry. Consider it merely a warning against believing everything you read in TMO press releases. Sorta like when most of the TM-related press releases about the controversial (withdrawn from publication at the last minute and then later re-released) study on heart disease and TM failed to mention that the study participants were all black. African Americans are 40% more likely to have high blood pressure than other ethnic groups, and 10% less likely to have it under control. The TMO writeup didn't mention the ethnic makeup of the study *at all*. ALL that was important to them was that there was something that they could spin into making TM look good. As for the French, well...I lived there for many years, and I've never really understood their overly SERIOUS side, and their tendency to take any play or movie or novel that is ponderous and dark and incomprehensible and assume that it's ART. And at the same time, their favorite performers -- both on the stage and in movies -- have always been irredeemably stupid clowns like Jerry Lewis, whose humor appeals to the lowest, least intelligent common denominator. So drawing any conclu- sions from them honoring David Lynch is a bit suspect. :-) From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: he became a legend because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie, it's actually good. I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-) You mean the same French who believe that *Jerry Lewis* was one of the greatest geniuses of the cinema? :-) FYI, Lynch was awarded the *lowest* rank of Officer of the Legion of Honor -- Chevalier -- not the highest: The order has had five levels since the reign of King Louis XVIII, who restored the order in 1815. Since the reform, the following distinctions have existed : * Chevalier (knight) * Commandeur (Commander) * Grand Officier (Grand Officer) * Grand-Croix (Grand Cross) Others so honored include Celine Dion, David Cronenberg, and Bruce Willis. Even Michele Yeoh, Hong Kong martial arts movie star, was awarded a higher honor, Commandeur. :-) For the record, Jerry Lewis was honored as a Chevalier in 1984, but then elevated to the rank of Commandeur in 2006, so even *he* ranks higher than David Lynch in the discerning eye of the French. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: idiots that would pay a mill for his darshan could have had him puke in their faces and would have considered it a blessing. One thing to consider is that a million dollars looks like a lot to you, but not to those who spent it. Wealthy people don't feel a million dollars, the same way you and I do. The ultra-rich could have a hundred gurus puke in their faces, at a million a pop, and not notice the debit (though the presumed gallons of vomit would be difficult to ignore - Now *there's* a Fabreze Challenge for you...). schnipp
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Thanks. I oughta come out with a line of coffee mugs, huh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound value. I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it goes for me. Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-) Doc, I really appreciate your writings about enlightenment. Spot on in my experience too. For a while I was thinking of saving your quips about this as aphorisms but I ain't got the time to edit that now. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
Very good, but the lil' quacker really oughta have a stethoscope around his neck... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Thanks. I oughta come out with a line of coffee mugs, huh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound value. I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it goes for me. Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-) Doc, I really appreciate your writings about enlightenment. Spot on in my experience too. For a while I was thinking of saving your quips about this as aphorisms but I ain't got the time to edit that now. -Buck
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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 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 – and I do not use that word lightly – 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?
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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 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 – and I do not use that word lightly – 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?
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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 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 – and I do not use that word lightly – 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 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 – and I do not use that word lightly – 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The Channeler Sutra. - I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized aspects of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative lunacy. You decide. To me they're memories. I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our galaxy's great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and to which it will return. Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm Love and Light, Ravi On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 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 – and I do not use that word lightly – 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
You might actually have a good shot at replacing Jerry Lewis Ravi. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 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 – and I do not use that word lightly – 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?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. It's interesting that the folks who make the most noise in promoting their ideas also seem to be the folks who are the most afraid of engaging with challenges to those ideas. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: 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 sharelong60@... 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 mjackson74@... 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 sharelong60@... 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
I don't actually channel anymore Rav. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The Channeler Sutra. - I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized aspects of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative lunacy. You decide. To me they're memories. I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our galaxy's great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and to which it will return. Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm Love and Light, Ravi On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 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 – and I do not use that word lightly – 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
Oh my darling son MJ - you will ignore my instructions at your own peril. This powerful sutra - The Channeler Sutra - is the product of my incredible tapas I have been performing on the beautiful peaks of Sierra Nevadas over the last few weekends. Being Kali Yuga I am unable to travel to Himalayas - you are free to donate $1008 for this noble worthy cause. Dear son - I watched sinners ski while I rolled around naked in the snow as part of my incredible tapas. Being Kali Yuga - I had to buy the damn lift tickets- once again you are free to donate $108 for lift tickets. I see your aura my son, it is bright and you are destined to bring forth the light of 108 galaxies to the suffering humanity this lifetime. This would have been your last life time and you would have obtained moksha if not for the damn scientists who keep discovering more galaxies - so you will have to reincarnate. But fear not - you will have my grace and blessings to get off the wheel of death and rebirth. Love and blessings, Sri Sri Sri Bhagwan Ravi Yogi Maharaj Avatar of the age of Enlightenment Powerful healer, channeler On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.comwrote: ** I don't actually channel anymore Rav. -- *From:* Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26 PM *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The Channeler Sutra. - I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized aspects of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative lunacy. You decide. To me they're memories. I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our galaxy's great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and to which it will return. Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm Love and Light, Ravi On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com *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 mjackso...@yahoo.com *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 sharelon...@yahoo.com *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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com *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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
Maybe Ravi is right and I am retarded - that would explain why I have no idea how to respond to what seems pretty obvious to me - just because Oz has dough and climbed the fame ladder on Oprah's back does not make him an authority on all things in the Universe and when his pronouncements are at odds with what I have experienced with TM and its organization, I would be truly an idiot to just throw up my hands and say Oh Lawdy! Dr. Oz says its good so all my experiences must be wrong! Lemme run go git checked right quick and beg Bevan for forgiveness! Oz is an entertainer more than anything else and if you think he will go up against Oprah, the person who put him on the map then maybe you need lessons in critical thinking. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:33 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. It's interesting that the folks who make the most noise in promoting their ideas also seem to be the folks who are the most afraid of engaging with challenges to those ideas. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: 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.
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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 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 – and I do not use that word lightly – 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?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
Don't ask me what I think of your capacity for critical thinking, Michael. I'll just point out one thing, because it's symptomatic: You have a quite remarkable inability to discern where the folks you talk to here are coming from. I did a better job of debunking Oz's endorsement of TM in a post to Share last night than you've done below. Now read the last sentence of your post again and ponder how you could have gotten it so wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Maybe Ravi is right and I am retarded - that would explain why I have no idea how to respond to what seems pretty obvious to me - just because Oz has dough and climbed the fame ladder on Oprah's back does not make him an authority on all things in the Universe and when his pronouncements are at odds with what I have experienced with TM and its organization, I would be truly an idiot to just throw up my hands and say Oh Lawdy! Dr. Oz says its good so all my experiences must be wrong! Lemme run go git checked right quick and beg Bevan for forgiveness! Oz is an entertainer more than anything else and if you think he will go up against Oprah, the person who put him on the map then maybe you need lessons in critical thinking. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:33 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. It's interesting that the folks who make the most noise in promoting their ideas also seem to be the folks who are the most afraid of engaging with challenges to those ideas. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
man you are funny - even when you have a cussing fit aimed at me, I can only laugh - for some reason your energy always makes me think of the Jethro Tull song Jack in the Green From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael Oh my darling son MJ - you will ignore my instructions at your own peril. This powerful sutra - The Channeler Sutra - is the product of my incredible tapas I have been performing on the beautiful peaks of Sierra Nevadas over the last few weekends. Being Kali Yuga I am unable to travel to Himalayas - you are free to donate $1008 for this noble worthy cause. Dear son - I watched sinners ski while I rolled around naked in the snow as part of my incredible tapas. Being Kali Yuga - I had to buy the damn lift tickets- once again you are free to donate $108 for lift tickets. I see your aura my son, it is bright and you are destined to bring forth the light of 108 galaxies to the suffering humanity this lifetime. This would have been your last life time and you would have obtained moksha if not for the damn scientists who keep discovering more galaxies - so you will have to reincarnate. But fear not - you will have my grace and blessings to get off the wheel of death and rebirth. Love and blessings, Sri Sri Sri Bhagwan Ravi Yogi Maharaj Avatar of the age of Enlightenment Powerful healer, channeler On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't actually channel anymore Rav. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The Channeler Sutra. - I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized aspects of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative lunacy. You decide. To me they're memories. I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our galaxy's great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and to which it will return. Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm Love and Light, Ravi On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back --- In FairfieldLife
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: man you are funny - even when you have a cussing fit aimed at me, I can only laugh - for some reason your energy always makes me think of the Jethro Tull song Jack in the Green I would have gone for Thick As A Brick. :-) From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... Oh my darling son MJ - you will ignore my instructions at your own peril. This powerful sutra - The Channeler Sutra - is the product of my incredible tapas I have been performing on the beautiful peaks of Sierra Nevadas over the last few weekends. Being Kali Yuga I am unable to travel to Himalayas - you are free to donate $1008 for this noble worthy cause. Dear son - I watched sinners ski while I rolled around naked in the snow as part of my incredible tapas. Being Kali Yuga - I had to buy the damn lift tickets- once again you are free to donate $108 for lift tickets. I see your aura my son, it is bright and you are destined to bring forth the light of 108 galaxies to the suffering humanity this lifetime. This would have been your last life time and you would have obtained moksha if not for the damn scientists who keep discovering more galaxies - so you will have to reincarnate. But fear not - you will have my grace and blessings to get off the wheel of death and rebirth. Love and blessings, Sri Sri Sri Bhagwan Ravi Yogi Maharaj Avatar of the age of Enlightenment Powerful healer, channeler On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: I don't actually channel anymore Rav. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The Channeler Sutra. - I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized aspects of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative lunacy. You decide. To me they're memories. I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our galaxy's great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and to which it will return. Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm Love and Light, Ravi On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes. On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote:  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 sharelong60@... 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 mjackson74@... 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 sharelong60@... 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 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
Share stated: So again, if you are able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and healthy, practices and promotes TM? That's like saying, How do you explain that someone like Dr. Francis Collins who is smart, successful, healthy, and a respected scientist that helped discover the human genome practicing prayer and sharing about Christianity and his belief in God? Point being, there are smart, successful, healthy people all over the planet that practice/believe different things. And now I think of Keith Richards. He sure seems to be keeping keeping on in spite of his practices. I wonder if he does TM? ;) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: 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 mjackson74@... 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 sharelong60@... 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 fintlewoodlewix@... 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?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
I should proof read better... That's like saying, 'How do you explain that someone like Dr. Francis Collins (who is smart, successful, healthy, and a respected scientist that helped discover the human genome) practices prayer and shares about Christianity and his belief in God?' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@... wrote: Share stated: So again, if you are able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and healthy, practices and promotes TM? That's like saying, How do you explain that someone like Dr. Francis Collins who is smart, successful, healthy, and a respected scientist that helped discover the human genome practicing prayer and sharing about Christianity and his belief in God? Point being, there are smart, successful, healthy people all over the planet that practice/believe different things. And now I think of Keith Richards. He sure seems to be keeping keeping on in spite of his practices. I wonder if he does TM? ;) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: 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 mjackson74@ 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 sharelong60@ 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 fintlewoodlewix@ 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?
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 sharelon...@yahoo.com 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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: (snip) 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. The better the circumstances, the better one will feel after TM (although I'm dubious that some of the circumstances you list make a significant difference). But it's certainly not the case that one won't feel good unless all those parameters are met. 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? It's the way Maharishi designed TM instruction (and checking) to ensure effortlessness. Not that Oz would have been likely to get this, and not that other techniques don't facilitate connecting with pure awareness. But TM is more efficient in that regard. (Some teachers say the puja makes a difference too.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and Carol
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 mjackso...@yahoo.com 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 sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife
[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 sharelong60@... 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 mjackson74@... 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound value. Yes, Like Om Aim Klim Shrim Hrim. I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it goes for me. Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: I didn't say it was HIndu worship, I said it is a Hindu devotional practice Oh, please. That's a distinction without a difference, and you know it. emptybill's posts are a strong rebuttal of your skinboy pal's claims, and you've made it only too clear you have no substantive counter-rebuttal. If somebody else has a good response, let's hear it. We're sure not going to get one from Michael. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  empty, if I may, I'm going to quote your follow-up post reinforcing the point: Baba Hari Dass is an impeccable yogin possessed of vairagya and dispossessed of any agenda. He is the yogin's yogin. My point was to call attention to an alternate authoritative source - someone able to explain the distinction between mantra-dhyana and mantra-japa. The key is to recognize that a mantra can be used in meditation simply for its sound value, without any reference to meaning. While this may seem over-obvious to TM and Sahaj Samadhi meditators, this is what demarcates it from ordinary language. Used in this way, mantric sound is part of the human sensorium but is self-generated in the same way that speech is. This kind of bare sensoria is non-conceptual and does not require analysis to be perceived. Bija mantras are yogic tools for just this type of non-conceptual (nirvikalpa) direct cognition. The fact is that MMY told us the truth about mantras and their proper yogic use in TM. The cultural artifact is that Indians use mantras for Japa to a hindu deity - it is just a datum of the Indian mind set. No self-respecting Hindu conducts their life without a least 20-30 mantras on-hand at all times (except the Indian communists). TM/Sahaj Samadhi meditators do not, unless they choose to worship a deva. When someone tells us such meditation is hindu worship then they are simply misinformed, ignorant or ideologues. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill wrote: Outside of your personal opinions, your statements about the TM technique are not accurate. M.Jack says: TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the names of Hindu goddesses. In reply, here is a previous post discussing the differences between meditation-mantra and devotional-japa. \ * Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by some former TM'ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantric sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound value. Yes, Like Om Aim Klim Shrim Hrim. No wonder the Catholic Church is in such a disarray. They should have also gone with the TM mantras in ripping off TM for Centering Prayer instead of making up their own. Little did they know. I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it goes for me. Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: I didn't say it was HIndu worship, I said it is a Hindu devotional practice Oh, please. That's a distinction without a difference, and you know it. emptybill's posts are a strong rebuttal of your skinboy pal's claims, and you've made it only too clear you have no substantive counter-rebuttal. If somebody else has a good response, let's hear it. We're sure not going to get one from Michael. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  empty, if I may, I'm going to quote your follow-up post reinforcing the point: Baba Hari Dass is an impeccable yogin possessed of vairagya and dispossessed of any agenda. He is the yogin's yogin. My point was to call attention to an alternate authoritative source - someone able to explain the distinction between mantra-dhyana and mantra-japa. The key is to recognize that a mantra can be used in meditation simply for its sound value, without any reference to meaning. While this may seem over-obvious to TM and Sahaj Samadhi meditators, this is what demarcates it from ordinary language. Used in this way, mantric sound is part of the human sensorium but is self-generated in the same way that speech is. This kind of bare sensoria is non-conceptual and does not require analysis to be perceived. Bija mantras are yogic tools for just this type of non-conceptual (nirvikalpa) direct cognition. The fact is that MMY told us the truth about mantras and their proper yogic use in TM. The cultural artifact is that Indians use mantras for Japa to a hindu deity - it is just a datum of the Indian mind set. No self-respecting Hindu conducts their life without a least 20-30 mantras on-hand at all times (except the Indian communists). TM/Sahaj Samadhi meditators do not, unless they choose to worship a deva. When someone tells us such meditation is hindu worship then they are simply misinformed, ignorant or ideologues. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill wrote: Outside of your personal opinions, your statements about the TM technique are not accurate. M.Jack says: TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the names of Hindu goddesses. In reply, here is a previous post discussing the differences between meditation-mantra and devotional-japa. \ * Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by some former TM'ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantric sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Yes, I do believe we've heard all this from you before, more than once. What was the relevance to the issue of whether TM is a Hindu devotional practice? Really, Michael, it's getting a little worrisome. Whenever you're challenged, you just seem to sort of zone out and sing one of your old familiar choruses to yourself. It's a version of Lalalalala, I can't hear you. It's probably the effect of spiritism which could make people hallucinate and loose contact with the facts of normal life. History is full of examples of spiritists that lost it big time and ended up in places you wouldn't want to go. Living in a fantasy that others are bad is a side-effect of spiritism the MJ does his outmost to prove here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
Thank you - and, for the time being, you and others call it the ho-hum of the Universe.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: I think Marshy called it the hum of the Universe From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound value. I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it goes for me. Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: I didn't say it was HIndu worship, I said it is a Hindu devotional practice Oh, please. That's a distinction without a difference, and you know it. emptybill's posts are a strong rebuttal of your skinboy pal's claims, and you've made it only too clear you have no substantive counter-rebuttal. If somebody else has a good response, let's hear it. We're sure not going to get one from Michael. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back àempty, if I may, I'm going to quote your follow-up post reinforcing the point: Baba Hari Dass is an impeccable yogin possessed of vairagya and dispossessed of any agenda. He is the yogin's yogin. My point was to call attention to an alternate authoritative source - someone able to explain the distinction between mantra-dhyana and mantra-japa. The key is to recognize that a mantra can be used in meditation simply for its sound value, without any reference to meaning. While this may seem over-obvious to TM and Sahaj Samadhi meditators, this is what demarcates it from ordinary language. Used in this way, mantric sound is part of the human sensorium but is self-generated in the same way that speech is. This kind of bare sensoria is non-conceptual and does not require analysis to be perceived. Bija mantras are yogic tools for just this type of non-conceptual (nirvikalpa) direct cognition. The fact is that MMY told us the truth about mantras and their proper yogic use in TM. The cultural artifact is that Indians use mantras for Japa to a hindu deity - it is just a datum of the Indian mind set. No self-respecting Hindu conducts their life without a least 20-30 mantras on-hand at all times (except the Indian communists). TM/Sahaj Samadhi meditators do not, unless they choose to worship a deva. When someone tells us such meditation is hindu worship then they are simply misinformed, ignorant or ideologues. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill wrote: Outside of your personal opinions, your statements about the TM technique are not accurate. M.Jack says: TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the names of Hindu goddesses. In reply, here is a previous post discussing the differences between meditation-mantra and devotional-japa. \ * Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by some former TM'ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantric sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back barnacles
I read them all too. But it took longer than the 2 minutes it took Judy. And I skimmed! Very bad! As my karmic retribution I missed the barnacle comment. I LOVE barnacle comments. I think we need more barnacle comments on FFL. Well technically use of the word more is not completely accurate. I mean we need more DIRECT barnacle comments not simply all this referring to another source. We need our very own FFL barnacle comments. Like: turq! very creative to give Ann a barnacle as a prom corsage. But I'm not 100% sure it will match her dress. oy, comedian still in training, have mercy, don't throw barnacles, thank you From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back Talk about devotion. To which cause, I don't know. But reading all the comments? Is barnacle a derogatory word? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: and if you have read all of the comments, you will see the TM people are bitching about the article not being positive enough! From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  Hah! Was I ever wrong! They just posted another eight comments, seven of which were positive, and the eighth of which was...Michael's. (Don Sosin made one too, BTW--positive, obviously.) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html#commentsContainer http://tinyurl.com/atqaxgx --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: So since they aren't posting my comment - here it is: FWIW, no new comments have been posted since the seven positive ones that were up last night. I'd guess that there will be another batch up soon (checking the comments for this piece is most likely not that high on the Times's priority list). I further predict that when the new comments go up, there will be a number of negative ones, but they will not include Michael's. Michael, just for the heck of it, I've edited your comment to reflect what I think they would be a lot more likely to publish: I began TM in 1974 and enjoyed it enough to become a real TM cheerleader. But as the years went by, I left the TM Movement due to what I perceived as the huge disconnect between the promises of TM and what it actually delivered. Lynch is spearheading a very carefully orchestrated effort to restore TM's image to a pre-1976 luster. TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the names of Hindu goddesses. And that would be all right as long as the organization was upfront about it. In my observation, the Times likes its Comments sections to reflect many different points of view, but it avoids comments that are likely to start fights or, goodness knows, invite legal problems. Your comment as submitted had a good chance of doing both. I began TM in 1974 and enjoyed it enough to become a real TM fanatic and cheerleader. As the years went by, I left the TM Movement due to the huge disconnect between the promises of TM and what it actually delivered, especially the awful, arrogant deceitful behavior of even the low to mid level managers of the TM organization, much less the leaders of the Movement. Lynch is spearheading a very carefully orchestrated effort to sanitize the TM's image to a pre-1976 luster. 1976 was the year their Maharishi announced the TM Sidhi program to the world. The TM Movement can honestly be characterized as a decades long flow of dishonesty and deceit, taking money under false pretenses and very unpleasant behavior on the part of those who administrate the Movement. I had the pleasure of speaking at some length with someone who spent years as Maharishi's personal secretary and for all his praise of the man, this person told me that it was clear that the leader of the TM movement was totally focused on sex, money and personal power. What the Big M created, his Movement perpetuates. TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the names of Hindu goddesses. And that is alright as long as you are upfront about what you are doing. For my money and in my experience, TM is one big scam. After more than 20 years I stopped doing TM and never looked back.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back barnacles
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I read them all too. But it took longer than the 2 minutes it took Judy. And I skimmed! Very bad! As my karmic retribution I missed the barnacle comment. I LOVE barnacle comments. I think we need more barnacle comments on FFL. Well technically use of the word more is not completely accurate. I mean we need more DIRECT barnacle comments not simply all this referring to another source. We need our very own FFL barnacle comments. Like: turq! very creative to give Ann a barnacle as a prom corsage. But I'm not 100% sure it will match her dress. I do believe you could be right, it will certainly match my hat. oy, comedian still in training, have mercy, don't throw barnacles, thank you From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  Talk about devotion. To which cause, I don't know. But reading all the comments? Is barnacle a derogatory word? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: and if you have read all of the comments, you will see the TM people are bitching about the article not being positive enough! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back àHah! Was I ever wrong! They just posted another eight comments, seven of which were positive, and the eighth of which was...Michael's. (Don Sosin made one too, BTW--positive, obviously.) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-me\ ditation.html#commentsContainer http://tinyurl.com/atqaxgx --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: So since they aren't posting my comment - here it is: FWIW, no new comments have been posted since the seven positive ones that were up last night. I'd guess that there will be another batch up soon (checking the comments for this piece is most likely not that high on the Times's priority list). I further predict that when the new comments go up, there will be a number of negative ones, but they will not include Michael's. Michael, just for the heck of it, I've edited your comment to reflect what I think they would be a lot more likely to publish: I began TM in 1974 and enjoyed it enough to become a real TM cheerleader. But as the years went by, I left the TM Movement due to what I perceived as the huge disconnect between the promises of TM and what it actually delivered. Lynch is spearheading a very carefully orchestrated effort to restore TM's image to a pre-1976 luster. TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the names of Hindu goddesses. And that would be all right as long as the organization was upfront about it. In my observation, the Times likes its Comments sections to reflect many different points of view, but it avoids comments that are likely to start fights or, goodness knows, invite legal problems. Your comment as submitted had a good chance of doing both. I began TM in 1974 and enjoyed it enough to become a real TM fanatic and cheerleader. As the years went by, I left the TM Movement due to the huge disconnect between the promises of TM and what it actually delivered, especially the awful, arrogant deceitful behavior of even the low to mid level managers of the TM organization, much less the leaders of the Movement. Lynch is spearheading a very carefully orchestrated effort to sanitize the TM's image to a pre-1976 luster. 1976 was the year their Maharishi announced the TM Sidhi program to the world. The TM Movement can honestly be characterized as a decades long flow of dishonesty and deceit, taking money under false pretenses and very unpleasant behavior on the part of those who administrate the Movement. I had the pleasure of speaking at some length with someone who spent years as Maharishi's personal secretary and for all his praise of the man, this person told me that it was clear that the leader of the TM movement was totally focused on sex, money and personal power. What the Big M created, his Movement perpetuates. TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the names of Hindu goddesses. And that is alright as long as you are upfront about what you are doing. For my money and in my experience, TM is one big scam. After more than 20 years I stopped doing TM and never looked back.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back barnacles
Okay, Ann's sense of humor,which was always good has now been upgraded to top tier. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I read them all too. But it took longer than the 2 minutes it took Judy. And I skimmed! Very bad! As my karmic retribution I missed the barnacle comment. I LOVE barnacle comments. I think we need more barnacle comments on FFL. Well technically use of the word more is not completely accurate. I mean we need more DIRECT barnacle comments not simply all this referring to another source. We need our very own FFL barnacle comments. Like: turq! very creative to give Ann a barnacle as a prom corsage. But I'm not 100% sure it will match her dress. I do believe you could be right, it will certainly match my hat. oy, comedian still in training, have mercy, don't throw barnacles, thank you From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  Talk about devotion. To which cause, I don't know. But reading all the comments? Is barnacle a derogatory word? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: and if you have read all of the comments, you will see the TM people are bitching about the article not being positive enough! From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back àHah! Was I ever wrong! They just posted another eight comments, seven of which were positive, and the eighth of which was...Michael's. (Don Sosin made one too, BTW--positive, obviously.) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-me\ \ ditation.html#commentsContainer http://tinyurl.com/atqaxgx --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: So since they aren't posting my comment - here it is: FWIW, no new comments have been posted since the seven positive ones that were up last night. I'd guess that there will be another batch up soon (checking the comments for this piece is most likely not that high on the Times's priority list). I further predict that when the new comments go up, there will be a number of negative ones, but they will not include Michael's. Michael, just for the heck of it, I've edited your comment to reflect what I think they would be a lot more likely to publish: I began TM in 1974 and enjoyed it enough to become a real TM cheerleader. But as the years went by, I left the TM Movement due to what I perceived as the huge disconnect between the promises of TM and what it actually delivered. Lynch is spearheading a very carefully orchestrated effort to restore TM's image to a pre-1976 luster. TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the names of Hindu goddesses. And that would be all right as long as the organization was upfront about it. In my observation, the Times likes its Comments sections to reflect many different points of view, but it avoids comments that are likely to start fights or, goodness knows, invite legal problems. Your comment as submitted had a good chance of doing both. I began TM in 1974 and enjoyed it enough to become a real TM fanatic and cheerleader. As the years went by, I left the TM Movement due to the huge disconnect between the promises of TM and what it actually delivered, especially the awful, arrogant deceitful behavior of even the low to mid level managers of the TM organization, much less the leaders of the Movement. Lynch is spearheading a very carefully orchestrated effort to sanitize the TM's image to a pre-1976 luster. 1976 was the year their Maharishi announced the TM Sidhi program to the world. The TM Movement can honestly be characterized as a decades long flow of dishonesty and deceit, taking money under false pretenses and very unpleasant behavior on the part of those who administrate the Movement. I had the pleasure of speaking at some length with someone who spent years as Maharishi's personal secretary and for all his praise of the man, this person told me that it was clear that the leader of the TM movement was totally focused on sex, money and personal power. What the Big M created, his Movement perpetuates. TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds. It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
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, 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. This is a PDF document, an excerpt from 'Beacon Light of the Himalayas'. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
that is a good quote - and it points out something else the former skin boy told me which was that in his opinion, TM is all about the the accumulation of personal power rather than being a path to enlightenment as in we repeat the names of gods or goddesses so they will give us good stuff - either way, the end result is the kinds of behavior that the TMO leaders and even low to mid level managers exhibit - unpleasant, deceitful, arrogant etc. Yep TM is a goood thing to do. And even if you like Lynch's movies for their artistic value as films, the subject matter is often some sick twisted stuff - and he credits TM with unleashing his creativity to make such trash And to answer J's question - empty's quoting an old post don't cut no ice wid me cuz I don't believe it. Period. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: that is a good quote - and it points out something else the former skin boy told me which was that in his opinion, TM is all about the the accumulation of personal power rather than being a path to enlightenment as in we repeat the names of gods or goddesses Back to the original issue: Did Maharishi say in this quote that TM involves repeating the names of gods or goddesses? Or did he say something a little different? (Just for the record, we've had several lengthy discussions of this Beacon Light quote here over the years. I guess Xeno wasn't here for the last one. I'm not sure there's anything to be said about the quote that hasn't been said before more than once, but we might as well go over it again.) Oh, and are enlightenment and the accumulation of personal power mutually exclusive? For that matter, does make us happier in every walk of life even refer to personal power? so they will give us good stuff - either way, the end result is the kinds of behavior that the TMO leaders and even low to mid level managers exhibit - unpleasant, deceitful, arrogant etc. Yep TM is a goood thing to do. And even if you like Lynch's movies for their artistic value as films, the subject matter is often some sick twisted stuff - and he credits TM with unleashing his creativity to make such trash Wait. Is it trash, or does it have artistic value? And to answer J's question - empty's quoting an old post don't cut no ice wid me cuz I don't believe it. Period. Right. As I said, you are unwilling or unable to address the case emptybill made. You won't even address the question of whether the opinion of a skin boy trumps that of a respected scholarly Hindu yogi. The skin boy said it, I believe it, that settles it. I could swear I've seen that on a bumper sticker somewhere. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
You already answered your own question: 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. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that is a good quote - and it points out something else the former skin boy told me which was that in his opinion, TM is all about the the accumulation of personal power rather than being a path to enlightenment as in we repeat the names of gods or goddesses Back to the original issue: Did Maharishi say in this quote that TM involves repeating the names of gods or goddesses? Or did he say something a little different? (Just for the record, we've had several lengthy discussions of this Beacon Light quote here over the years. I guess Xeno wasn't here for the last one. I'm not sure there's anything to be said about the quote that hasn't been said before more than once, but we might as well go over it again.) Oh, and are enlightenment and the accumulation of personal power mutually exclusive? For that matter, does make us happier in every walk of life even refer to personal power? so they will give us good stuff - either way, the end result is the kinds of behavior that the TMO leaders and even low to mid level managers exhibit - unpleasant, deceitful, arrogant etc. Yep TM is a goood thing to do. And even if you like Lynch's movies for their artistic value as films, the subject matter is often some sick twisted stuff - and he credits TM with unleashing his creativity to make such trash Wait. Is it trash, or does it have artistic value? And to answer J's question - empty's quoting an old post don't cut no ice wid me cuz I don't believe it. Period. Right. As I said, you are unwilling or unable to address the case emptybill made. You won't even address the question of whether the opinion of a skin boy trumps that of a respected scholarly Hindu yogi. The skin boy said it, I believe it, that settles it. I could swear I've seen that on a bumper sticker somewhere. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: You already answered your own question: For our practice we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Right. My question was, Did Maharishi say in this quote that TM involves repeating the names of gods or goddesses? Or did he say something a little different? The answer is that he said something a little different: mantras of personal gods, not names of personal gods. This is one of the things that emptybill pointed out. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: that is a good quote - and it points out something else the former skin boy told me which was that in his opinion, TM is all about the the accumulation of personal power rather than being a path to enlightenment as in we repeat the names of gods or goddesses Back to the original issue: Did Maharishi say in this quote that TM involves repeating the names of gods or goddesses? Or did he say something a little different? (Just for the record, we've had several lengthy discussions of this Beacon Light quote here over the years. I guess Xeno wasn't here for the last one. I'm not sure there's anything to be said about the quote that hasn't been said before more than once, but we might as well go over it again.) Oh, and are enlightenment and the accumulation of personal power mutually exclusive? For that matter, does make us happier in every walk of life even refer to personal power? so they will give us good stuff - either way, the end result is the kinds of behavior that the TMO leaders and even low to mid level managers exhibit - unpleasant, deceitful, arrogant etc. Yep TM is a goood thing to do. And even if you like Lynch's movies for their artistic value as films, the subject matter is often some sick twisted stuff - and he credits TM with unleashing his creativity to make such trash Wait. Is it trash, or does it have artistic value? And to answer J's question - empty's quoting an old post don't cut no ice wid me cuz I don't believe it. Period. Right. As I said, you are unwilling or unable to address the case emptybill made. You won't even address the question of whether the opinion of a skin boy trumps that of a respected scholarly Hindu yogi. The skin boy said it, I believe it, that settles it. I could swear I've seen that on a bumper sticker somewhere. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
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 authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
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 mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
