[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
agreed-- as has been said, there is no such thing as bad publicity. and that goes for the TM and MMY bashers here too- just by criticizing and bashing TM they continue to keep it alive in the minds of those who read these posts. after some time all people remember was a discussion on TM, not what was said. its why people like Martha Stewart are still celebrities. keep it up! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: agreed-- as has been said, there is no such thing as bad publicity. and that goes for the TM and MMY bashers here too- just by criticizing and bashing TM they continue to keep it alive in the minds of those who read these posts. after some time all people remember was a discussion on TM, not what was said. its why people like Martha Stewart are still celebrities. keep it up! If that were really true, then there is no basis for the position taken by Judy and Raunchydog (and by the TMO's/Lynch Foun- dation's scumbag of a lawyer) that John Knapp and others expressing their critical points of view about TM, the TMO, and Maharishi should not be allowed to happen. Judy and Raunchydog have stated that they feel that revealing information about the puja and the nature of the mantras, etc. could be confusing to new meditators and spoil the innocence of their experience of TM. They have put themselves on the record as being firmly in favor of WITH- HOLDING such information, for the students' own good. The TMO scumbag lawyer went so far as to *threaten* John Knapp and his associates for holding a simple online conference, and intimidate them into can- celling it out of fear of an expensive lawsuit. So CLEARLY none of these people agree with you, Jim. Instead, they CLEARLY believe that saying anything negative about TM, the TMO, and Maharishi does **NOT** fall into the cate- gory of any publicity is good publicity. Instead, they believe that it is *detrimental* to TM and TMers and has to be suppressed and/or demonized. How do you reconcile your theory with what seems to be the *established policy* of the TM organization, and with its vocal supporters and apologists on this forum? And on another level, if your mind is so weak that a few days after a discussion here all that you can remember is that there was a discussion on TM, what does that say about TM really improving creative intelligence? Seems to me that you are saying that what it does is *impair* your memory and make you incapable of retaining information, right? Not that that should surprise us given your history of posts here... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
On Apr 10, 2009, at 6:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Judy and Raunchydog have stated that they feel that revealing information about the puja and the nature of the mantras, etc. could be confusing to new meditators and spoil the innocence of their experience of TM. They have put themselves on the record as being firmly in favor of WITH- HOLDING such information, for the students' own good. The TMO scumbag lawyer went so far as to *threaten* John Knapp and his associates for holding a simple online conference, and intimidate them into can- celling it out of fear of an expensive lawsuit. So CLEARLY none of these people agree with you, Jim. Project JADED INNOCENCE: What would be nice would be to put up a video of the puja on YouTube, and simply label it as what it is and what it is used for. The person performing the puja could wear a mask to conceal identity. Then the video could be easily seen (or made into DVD's) so prospective students and their parents could have full disclosure. It could simultaneously be seeded on Torrent trackers. The DVD version could have the various mantra lists for even fuller disclosure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Apr 10, 2009, at 6:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Judy and Raunchydog have stated that they feel that revealing information about the puja and the nature of the mantras, etc. could be confusing to new meditators and spoil the innocence of their experience of TM. They have put themselves on the record as being firmly in favor of WITH- HOLDING such information, for the students' own good. The TMO scumbag lawyer went so far as to *threaten* John Knapp and his associates for holding a simple online conference, and intimidate them into can- celling it out of fear of an expensive lawsuit. So CLEARLY none of these people agree with you, Jim. Project JADED INNOCENCE: What would be nice would be to put up a video of the puja on YouTube, and simply label it as what it is and what it is used for. The person performing the puja could wear a mask to conceal identity. Then the video could be easily seen (or made into DVD's) so prospective students and their parents could have full disclosure. It could simultaneously be seeded on Torrent trackers. The DVD version could have the various mantra lists for even fuller disclosure. Very funny, Vaj. You want to reveal proprietary information but keep your identity hidden. Coward. No one likes a and rarely believes a tattletale.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
On Apr 10, 2009, at 8:26 AM, raunchydog wrote: Project JADED INNOCENCE: What would be nice would be to put up a video of the puja on YouTube, and simply label it as what it is and what it is used for. The person performing the puja could wear a mask to conceal identity. Then the video could be easily seen (or made into DVD's) so prospective students and their parents could have full disclosure. It could simultaneously be seeded on Torrent trackers. The DVD version could have the various mantra lists for even fuller disclosure. Very funny, Vaj. You want to reveal proprietary information but keep your identity hidden. Coward. No one likes a and rarely believes a tattletale. RD it's not about being a coward, it's about avoiding those who wish to squelch free speech, i.e. the TM Org and their attorneys and their possible use of SLAP suits.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
What you put your attention on grows. Is it just me, or does ED make some sense below? To me, if the world had ignored Ann Coulter, instead of paying attention to her dysfunctions, we'd not have the likes of Rep. Michele Bachmann. I mean, how many more pretty women are going to say to themselves: All I have to do is be outrageous, and because I'm pretty, I'll get airtime like Coulter. ??? This is THE sin of BigMedia -- they spotlight a clown and suddenly everyone is looking to buy bigass shoes and a red-bulb nose. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: agreed-- as has been said, there is no such thing as bad publicity. and that goes for the TM and MMY bashers here too- just by criticizing and bashing TM they continue to keep it alive in the minds of those who read these posts. after some time all people remember was a discussion on TM, not what was said. its why people like Martha Stewart are still celebrities. keep it up! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
thanks for your post! please keep the controversy going! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: agreed-- as has been said, there is no such thing as bad publicity. and that goes for the TM and MMY bashers here too- just by criticizing and bashing TM they continue to keep it alive in the minds of those who read these posts. after some time all people remember was a discussion on TM, not what was said. its why people like Martha Stewart are still celebrities. keep it up! If that were really true, then there is no basis for the position taken by Judy and Raunchydog (and by the TMO's/Lynch Foun- dation's scumbag of a lawyer) that John Knapp and others expressing their critical points of view about TM, the TMO, and Maharishi should not be allowed to happen. Judy and Raunchydog have stated that they feel that revealing information about the puja and the nature of the mantras, etc. could be confusing to new meditators and spoil the innocence of their experience of TM. They have put themselves on the record as being firmly in favor of WITH- HOLDING such information, for the students' own good. The TMO scumbag lawyer went so far as to *threaten* John Knapp and his associates for holding a simple online conference, and intimidate them into can- celling it out of fear of an expensive lawsuit. So CLEARLY none of these people agree with you, Jim. Instead, they CLEARLY believe that saying anything negative about TM, the TMO, and Maharishi does **NOT** fall into the cate- gory of any publicity is good publicity. Instead, they believe that it is *detrimental* to TM and TMers and has to be suppressed and/or demonized. How do you reconcile your theory with what seems to be the *established policy* of the TM organization, and with its vocal supporters and apologists on this forum? And on another level, if your mind is so weak that a few days after a discussion here all that you can remember is that there was a discussion on TM, what does that say about TM really improving creative intelligence? Seems to me that you are saying that what it does is *impair* your memory and make you incapable of retaining information, right? Not that that should surprise us given your history of posts here... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
yep- the way i look at it is not whether TM is a panacea for all (it does work spectacularly well for me, and a lot of others though...), but to just keep getting the name out there legitimizes it in the [spiritual] marketplace. for example with cars, i've never much cared for Chryslers- never purchased one, but there has been so much written and spoken about the brand, that i have always recognized it as a legitimate brand, regardless of who is saying what about it. same with the naysayers of TM. they may think it is a lousy technique, run by a corrupt organization, and led by a dead charlatan. so what? everyone is entitled to their opinion. the important thing is for this casual audience of 1200 or so FFL members to continue to be exposed to arguments pro and con about TM-- not Christianity, not Yogananda, not Buddhism, not mantra-less meditation, nor other forms of Yoga, but TM. as long as the ongoing discussion is, and continues to be about TM, it further legitimizes the brand in the awareness of those reading about it, whether they like it or not. the point is not whether those reading about TM make up their mind about it as a result of one opinion expressed or another, it is the repetition of the name and consequent growing familiarity of the technique that provides the benefit. so that when someone is in the market for a meditation technique, they may not immediately look favorably upon TM, but they will at least recognize it as a major brand, a household name, and give it more mindshare than if it were obscure and unknown. and this has always been the value of TM- a technique for the masses, a mcmeditation technique that most can benefit from. so getting the name out there, and keeping it out there is exactly what is needed. so we have here FREE viral advertising! and partly by some of its strongest detractors. gotta love it!...i may buy a Chrysler yet... jai guru dev --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: What you put your attention on grows. Is it just me, or does ED make some sense below? To me, if the world had ignored Ann Coulter, instead of paying attention to her dysfunctions, we'd not have the likes of Rep. Michele Bachmann. I mean, how many more pretty women are going to say to themselves: All I have to do is be outrageous, and because I'm pretty, I'll get airtime like Coulter. ??? This is THE sin of BigMedia -- they spotlight a clown and suddenly everyone is looking to buy bigass shoes and a red-bulb nose. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: agreed-- as has been said, there is no such thing as bad publicity. and that goes for the TM and MMY bashers here too- just by criticizing and bashing TM they continue to keep it alive in the minds of those who read these posts. after some time all people remember was a discussion on TM, not what was said. its why people like Martha Stewart are still celebrities. keep it up! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. The analogy might work with O'Reilly, but Stern is a meditator and has been for years. And he is not who you would point to as on the road to enlightenment, would you? You think he has reached cosmic consciousness yet? So how healthy is that health food?
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: agreed-- as has been said, there is no such thing as bad publicity. and that goes for the TM and MMY bashers here too- just by criticizing and bashing TM they continue to keep it alive in the minds of those who read these posts. after some time all people remember was a discussion on TM, not what was said. its why people like Martha Stewart are still celebrities. keep it up! Ah, I think that is more of a myth than anything. How about the bad publicity the Catholics got from their cover-ups of pedophile priests? I can't really divorce myself from what I know and think about TM, but I have a hard time believing that someone coming here would go away not having a feel for some of the criticism surrounding TM. If there was the net back in the days I was poking around at spirituality my guess is that I would have stayed far away from TM. However, I do think the criticisms help reinforce the TBs in their beliefs. Wonder how the bad publicity concerning Scientology has effected getting new members? It probably helps inspire the rank and file, but getting newbies? I bet it hurts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: What you put your attention on grows. Is it just me, or does ED make some sense below? To me, if the world had ignored Ann Coulter, instead of paying attention to her dysfunctions, we'd not have the likes of Rep. Michele Bachmann. I mean, how many more pretty women are going to say to themselves: All I have to do is be outrageous, and because I'm pretty, I'll get airtime like Coulter. ??? This is THE sin of BigMedia -- they spotlight a clown and suddenly everyone is looking to buy bigass shoes and a red-bulb nose. Cyber-space and meat-space (just learned that term and had to use it!) have their similarities. The theory is that if you ignore a troll the troll will move on. The problem is getting everyone to agree not only to ignore the troll but that the troll is a troll. Not likely to happen. That is why many forums have moderators and ban troublemakers. That would never work here because everyone is a troublemaker. ;) So, the world wasn't going to ignore Ann Coulter and the fact that I personally ignore her is meaningless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. The analogy might work with O'Reilly, but Stern is a meditator and has been for years. And he is not who you would point to as on the road to enlightenment, would you? You think he has reached cosmic consciousness yet? So how healthy is that health food? *** I don't know if you have ever done any gardening, but anybody who has, or who has /readthought about gardening, knows that a good seed is not the only thing that counts when considering growth. Obviously environment is a factor in growth when you plant a seed, and it's the same for the seed mantra of TM when it's planted in a personality. It's not only the person's nervous system when they start TM, which could range from seriously mentally ill to nearly enlightened, but it's a matter of the person's karma and the amount of stress in the environment, which is naturally quite high in the Kaliyuga. You might not see much growth at all in some people, even over decades of TM, because their nervous system is so twisted and their environment is so unhappy, which does not allow bliss consciousness to unfold -- it's like a good seed thrown into a bunch of weeds, it's growth may be little or nothing. The point about the health food store is that Stern is qualified to say TM is a good thing, even if he's not too sattvic a guy -- even as anybody even in the worst health can sell stuff at a health food store.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: ing. The point about the health food store is that Stern is qualified to say TM is a good thing, even if he's not too sattvic a guy -- even as anybody even in the worst health can sell stuff at a health food store. But if that sick person says, here, I have been eating this health food for years, look at how it has helped me and you a sick person, wouldn't a reasonable person wonder about how healthy that food really is? And if all you can grow is a shriveled plant what is the point?
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. The analogy might work with O'Reilly, but Stern is a meditator and has been for years. And he is not who you would point to as on the road to enlightenment, would you? Which of us is in a position to determine who is on the road and who isn't? You think he has reached cosmic consciousness yet? Who knows, and who cares? His sidekick, Robin Quivers (also a committed TMer), says when people tell her they can't believe Stern meditates, she says, Think of what he would be like without TM. (No, that's not meant to be proof of anything. The point is, you can't tell where a person is on the path and shouldn't attempt to judge.) So how healthy is that health food? Stern's fabulously successful at what he does. Seems like TM was pretty healthy for him. (But that's kind of not the point of MMY's analogy of the owner of the health-food store, you know?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. The analogy might work with O'Reilly, but Stern is a meditator and has been for years. And he is not who you would point to as on the road to enlightenment, would you? You think he has reached cosmic consciousness yet? So how healthy is that health food? How do you know he's not well on the road to enlightenment? What do you think enlightenment IS? L
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: ing. The point about the health food store is that Stern is qualified to say TM is a good thing, even if he's not too sattvic a guy -- even as anybody even in the worst health can sell stuff at a health food store. But if that sick person says, here, I have been eating this health food for years, look at how it has helped me and you a sick person, wouldn't a reasonable person wonder about how healthy that food really is? And if all you can grow is a shriveled plant what is the point? But what if you can't grow any plants at all? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: One of the things I've found most fascinating in all of this post-concert I'm important because something I was once associated with is in the news idiocy is the continuing tendency on the part of the TMO and TMers to not *CARE* who the praise comes from as long as it's praise. I would bet that if they'd gotten a good review of the concert and its goals from Adolf Hitler they'd be putting that in their press releases, too. But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. At least the great Roger Ebert is not giving him a pass on being an idiot. Here is his reaction to Bill's latest hit list. The last line should be read over and over and over by Nabby, Judy, and Off. That's their reaction to this concert hype to a T. Well, no, it's certainly not mine. I've been a Beatles fan since the winter after I graduated from college (1963-64), before they made their first visit to the U.S. I'd have been tickled by this concert regardless of their association with TM. I think what we're seeing here from Barry is more of the distress the TM critics feel about the TMO being involved with something positive and successful. As to O'Reilly, anybody that gives him a pass on being an idiot is, well, an idiot. As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That's no credit either to the clock or to what it was right about. (And O'Reilly's clock is right far less often than twice a day. Once every few years, maybe.) But the TM critics are *delirious* that they finally have something with which to do a guilt- by-association number: If O'Reilly likes it, it *must* be a really terrible thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: agreed-- as has been said, there is no such thing as bad publicity. and that goes for the TM and MMY bashers here too- just by criticizing and bashing TM they continue to keep it alive in the minds of those who read these posts. after some time all people remember was a discussion on TM, not what was said. its why people like Martha Stewart are still celebrities. keep it up! If that were really true, then there is no basis for the position taken by Judy and Raunchydog (and by the TMO's/Lynch Foun- dation's scumbag of a lawyer) that John Knapp and others expressing their critical points of view about TM, the TMO, and Maharishi should not be allowed to happen. None of the TM critics here will have the guts to call Barry on this lie about me and raunchydog. Neither of us has ever taken the position that expressing critical points of view about TM should not be allowed to happen. Who are the folks on this forum who *have* taken the should not be allowed to happen position? The TM *critics*. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: ing. The point about the health food store is that Stern is qualified to say TM is a good thing, even if he's not too sattvic a guy -- even as anybody even in the worst health can sell stuff at a health food store. But if that sick person says, here, I have been eating this health food for years, look at how it has helped me and you a sick person, wouldn't a reasonable person wonder about how healthy that food really is? And if all you can grow is a shriveled plant what is the point? The point is that every human has his/her own environment, internal, karmic, surroundings, so it won't do to say that the expectations for growth are the same for all in whom the seed is planted. If two planters are sidebyside, with one with no weeds, good soil, etc, and the other is deprived of water, bad soil, choked with weeds, etc, then a shrivelly plant from the same seed in the poor planter could say to the thriving plant in the good planter, hey, how come I'm not doing as well as you?, but the answer would surely be obvious. With the exception of a handful of people, the most severely mentally ill people (who could possibly do ten minutes of TM, not in a group), the usual schedule of TM practice produces excellent results in stress reduction and expansion of awareness. I quit smoking (a three pack/day habit) after 10 months of TM without making any effort at all to quit -- the habit lost me, and I never dreamed about smoking, which people who force themselves to quit usually do. This does not mean that TM works the same for everybody, as is obvious with David Lynch, still smoking cigs after 37 yrs of TM. Even a shrivelled plant is better off with TM than without -- and of course the great majority of people practicing TM longterm have significant growth, which is why they continue the practice...Howard Stern knows TM is good for him, even if people question his character, so it's legit for him to say it's a good thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: ing. The point about the health food store is that Stern is qualified to say TM is a good thing, even if he's not too sattvic a guy -- even as anybody even in the worst health can sell stuff at a health food store. But if that sick person says, here, I have been eating this health food for years, look at how it has helped me and you a sick person, wouldn't a reasonable person wonder about how healthy that food really is? And if all you can grow is a shriveled plant what is the point? But what if you can't grow any plants at all? L. Funny!
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. The analogy might work with O'Reilly, but Stern is a meditator and has been for years. And he is not who you would point to as on the road to enlightenment, would you? Which of us is in a position to determine who is on the road and who isn't? You think he has reached cosmic consciousness yet? Who knows, and who cares? His sidekick, Robin Quivers (also a committed TMer), says when people tell her they can't believe Stern meditates, she says, Think of what he would be like without TM. (No, that's not meant to be proof of anything. The point is, you can't tell where a person is on the path and shouldn't attempt to judge.) So how healthy is that health food? Stern's fabulously successful at what he does. Seems like TM was pretty healthy for him. (But that's kind of not the point of MMY's analogy of the owner of the health-food store, you know?) OK, so TM can make you a fabulously successful shock jock. Well, that doesn't do it for me. I maintain that it is fair to form an impression of TM by looking at long term meditators and their lives and looking at the organizations that promote TM and looking looking at what MMY had to say. Like Curtis said, the people don't seem any better off or any better people than non-meditators. I think that it is fair to have an impression of the effectiveness TM by looking at the meditators I know and seeing whether they are happy and well adjusted, whether they are successful contributors to society and have good family relationships. Unfortunately, I know too many long term meditators that have lives filled with problems. They might go on and on about the good meditation they had or hint at wonderful experiences, but it ends there. I trust that they were not all coming from such a low level that if they had not done TM they would be even less well adjusted. I find listening to the leaders of the movement especially unimpressive. I find reading what they write unimpressive. I find the sidelines especially unimpressive. Send me a check and I will arrange a yagya. But I won't talk to you if your house doesn't face east. Oh, let me take your pulse and prescribe you a vatta pacifying diet. If TM works, it sure doesn't seem to work very well. Most people quit. If the siddhis work, they don't work very well. No one flies and if it is hot out the murder rate will still go up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
This analogy beaks down quite quickly when one considers that many plants thrive best when stressed while others who have ideal conditions compete with other plants eventually for growing space. The master gardener knows what plants to plant where and how to grow them. They do not just throw seeds to the wind. Such persons who do are not gardeners. Make of that what you will, but even an otherwise good and vigorous plant, when planted by mistake still becomes a weed due to wrong location. Also besides having right conditions at the start, cultivation means watching the process, knowing the entire range of the plants growing cycle and when to harvest. Otherwise no cultivation can be said to have been accomplished. If considered from this standpoint, analogically, then it can be said that TMO has little or no plans for cultivation beyond a certain point, probably due to not knowing the entire range of growing cycle of the human, since as of yet most of TMO's claims are merely fantasy and fiction. Little science, or understanding can be said to be obvious in the Movement's handling of human resources. The only way TM can lead one to liberation is if the technique has all the natural internal guidance within itself to grow one to their fruition. Otherwise there's no cultivation within the TMO for those who need it. Checking alone is just for the technique. One always must consider what seed was really planted. I know for myself what my mantra is, do you? I doubt it! - Original Message - From: bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:55 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: ing. The point about the health food store is that Stern is qualified to say TM is a good thing, even if he's not too sattvic a guy -- even as anybody even in the worst health can sell stuff at a health food store. But if that sick person says, here, I have been eating this health food for years, look at how it has helped me and you a sick person, wouldn't a reasonable person wonder about how healthy that food really is? And if all you can grow is a shriveled plant what is the point? The point is that every human has his/her own environment, internal, karmic, surroundings, so it won't do to say that the expectations for growth are the same for all in whom the seed is planted. If two planters are sidebyside, with one with no weeds, good soil, etc, and the other is deprived of water, bad soil, choked with weeds, etc, then a shrivelly plant from the same seed in the poor planter could say to the thriving plant in the good planter, hey, how come I'm not doing as well as you?, but the answer would surely be obvious. With the exception of a handful of people, the most severely mentally ill people (who could possibly do ten minutes of TM, not in a group), the usual schedule of TM practice produces excellent results in stress reduction and expansion of awareness. I quit smoking (a three pack/day habit) after 10 months of TM without making any effort at all to quit -- the habit lost me, and I never dreamed about smoking, which people who force themselves to quit usually do. This does not mean that TM works the same for everybody, as is obvious with David Lynch, still smoking cigs after 37 yrs of TM. Even a shrivelled plant is better off with TM than without -- and of course the great majority of people practicing TM longterm have significant growth, which is why they continue the practice...Howard Stern knows TM is good for him, even if people question his character, so it's legit for him to say it's a good thing. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
Lately, due to Facebook, I finally met up with old MIU buddies, and I was surprised to find that many if not most all of my friends are now in some humanitarian line of work. Even some people who seemed never to be that humanistic. So TM may be part of the growth of their compassion. One thing is certain and that is that no growth of awareness is wasted and growth of awareness does generally lead to becoming more compassionate. If one hasn't grown in compassion as a result of growth of awareness then it's most likely due to lack of any support in the environment for expressing that growth. But the TMO and other spiritual groups do lead to increased awareness, and they do also lead to communities based in compassion. How far they go is an expression of the system, or at very least is based in the environment of the system. Technique alone is not everything. - Original Message - From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:41 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. The analogy might work with O'Reilly, but Stern is a meditator and has been for years. And he is not who you would point to as on the road to enlightenment, would you? Which of us is in a position to determine who is on the road and who isn't? You think he has reached cosmic consciousness yet? Who knows, and who cares? His sidekick, Robin Quivers (also a committed TMer), says when people tell her they can't believe Stern meditates, she says, Think of what he would be like without TM. (No, that's not meant to be proof of anything. The point is, you can't tell where a person is on the path and shouldn't attempt to judge.) So how healthy is that health food? Stern's fabulously successful at what he does. Seems like TM was pretty healthy for him. (But that's kind of not the point of MMY's analogy of the owner of the health-food store, you know?) OK, so TM can make you a fabulously successful shock jock. Well, that doesn't do it for me. I maintain that it is fair to form an impression of TM by looking at long term meditators and their lives and looking at the organizations that promote TM and looking looking at what MMY had to say. Like Curtis said, the people don't seem any better off or any better people than non-meditators. I think that it is fair to have an impression of the effectiveness TM by looking at the meditators I know and seeing whether they are happy and well adjusted, whether they are successful contributors to society and have good family relationships. Unfortunately, I know too many long term meditators that have lives filled with problems. They might go on and on about the good meditation they had or hint at wonderful experiences, but it ends there. I trust that they were not all coming from such a low level that if they had not done TM they would be even less well adjusted. I find listening to the leaders of the movement especially unimpressive. I find reading what they write unimpressive. I find the sidelines especially unimpressive. Send me a check and I will arrange a yagya. But I won't talk to you if your house doesn't face east. Oh, let me take your pulse and prescribe you a vatta pacifying diet. If TM works, it sure doesn't seem to work very well. Most people quit. If the siddhis work, they don't work very well. No one flies and if it is hot out the murder rate will still go up. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. The analogy might work with O'Reilly, but Stern is a meditator and has been for years. And he is not who you would point to as on the road to enlightenment, would you? Which of us is in a position to determine who is on the road and who isn't? You think he has reached cosmic consciousness yet? Who knows, and who cares? His sidekick, Robin Quivers (also a committed TMer), says when people tell her they can't believe Stern meditates, she says, Think of what he would be like without TM. (No, that's not meant to be proof of anything. The point is, you can't tell where a person is on the path and shouldn't attempt to judge.) So how healthy is that health food? Stern's fabulously successful at what he does. Seems like TM was pretty healthy for him. (But that's kind of not the point of MMY's analogy of the owner of the health-food store, you know?) OK, so TM can make you a fabulously successful shock jock. Well, that doesn't do it for me. I maintain that it is fair to form an impression of TM by looking at long term meditators and their lives So Howard Stern just doesn't measure up in your eyes, right, because he's a shock jock? What other occupations do you consider to be beneath you? snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: One of the things I've found most fascinating in all of this post-concert I'm important because something I was once associated with is in the news idiocy is the continuing tendency on the part of the TMO and TMers to not *CARE* who the praise comes from as long as it's praise. I would bet that if they'd gotten a good review of the concert and its goals from Adolf Hitler they'd be putting that in their press releases, too. But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. At least the great Roger Ebert is not giving him a pass on being an idiot. Here is his reaction to Bill's latest hit list. The last line should be read over and over and over by Nabby, Judy, and Off. That's their reaction to this concert hype to a T. Ebert nailed Bill-O. Very funny. Even funnier is that Bill didn't know that some of the folks organizing the concert were associated with his nemesis, the evil MoveOn.org. LOL. It makes accepting praise from an asshole all the more delicious. Thoughts on Bill O'Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse By Roger Ebert / April 7, 2009 To: Bill O'Reilly From: Roger Ebert Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your Hall of Shame. To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben. Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time. I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that very few readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, many more complained about Nancy. I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that wow was mom spelled upside-down. Your column ran in our paper while it was owned by the right- wing polemicists Conrad Black (Baron Black of Coldharbour) and David Radler. We dropped it to save a little money after they looted the paper of millions. Now you call for an advertising boycott. It is unusual to observe a journalist cheering for a newspaper to fail. At present the Sun-Times has no bank debt, but labors under the weight of millions of dollars in tax penalties incurred by Lord Black, who is serving an eight-year stretch for mail fraud and obstruction of justice. We also had to pay for his legal expenses. There is a major difference between Conrad Black and you: Lord Black is a much better writer and thinker, and authored a respected biography about Roosevelt, who we were founded to defend. That newspapers continue to run your column is a mystery to me, since it is composed of knee-jerk frothings and ravings. If I were an editor searching for a conservative, I wouldn't choose a mad dog. My recommendation: The admirable Charles Krauthammer. Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician? That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: One of the things I've found most fascinating in all of this post-concert I'm important because something I was once associated with is in the news idiocy is the continuing tendency on the part of the TMO and TMers to not *CARE* who the praise comes from as long as it's praise. I would bet that if they'd gotten a good review of the concert and its goals from Adolf Hitler they'd be putting that in their press releases, too. But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. At least the great Roger Ebert is not giving him a pass on being an idiot. Here is his reaction to Bill's latest hit list. The last line should be read over and over and over by Nabby, Judy, and Off. That's their reaction to this concert hype to a T. Actually, Bill O'Reilly has been getting a LOT of flack from Catholic and other conservative religious blogs about his stance on TM. Which helps convince me of what I've long suspected: he really IS semi-independent from Faux News: They just tolerate him because he happens to agree with their editorial stance so much of the time. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: One of the things I've found most fascinating in all of this post-concert I'm important because something I was once associated with is in the news idiocy is the continuing tendency on the part of the TMO and TMers to not *CARE* who the praise comes from as long as it's praise. I would bet that if they'd gotten a good review of the concert and its goals from Adolf Hitler they'd be putting that in their press releases, too. But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. At least the great Roger Ebert is not giving him a pass on being an idiot. Here is his reaction to Bill's latest hit list. The last line should be read over and over and over by Nabby, Judy, and Off. That's their reaction to this concert hype to a T. Thoughts on Bill O'Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse By Roger Ebert / April 7, 2009 To: Bill O'Reilly From: Roger Ebert Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your Hall of Shame. To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben. Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time. Well, this is so silly on the face of it that I stopped reading at this point. To suggest that liberals were the ones eager to fight Hitler and conservatives weren't is so ridiculous that one should read no further. So silly that I won't even bother to offer evidence to contradict it. I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that very few readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, many more complained about Nancy. I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that wow was mom spelled upside-down. Your column ran in our paper while it was owned by the right- wing polemicists Conrad Black (Baron Black of Coldharbour) and David Radler. We dropped it to save a little money after they looted the paper of millions. Now you call for an advertising boycott. It is unusual to observe a journalist cheering for a newspaper to fail. At present the Sun-Times has no bank debt, but labors under the weight of millions of dollars in tax penalties incurred by Lord Black, who is serving an eight-year stretch for mail fraud and obstruction of justice. We also had to pay for his legal expenses. There is a major difference between Conrad Black and you: Lord Black is a much better writer and thinker, and authored a respected biography about Roosevelt, who we were founded to defend. That newspapers continue to run your column is a mystery to me, since it is composed of knee-jerk frothings and ravings. If I were an editor searching for a conservative, I wouldn't choose a mad dog. My recommendation: The admirable Charles Krauthammer. Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician? That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
O'Reilly frequently sets politics aside for a worthy cause.. unlike many others. The fact that this event is charitable for at risk youth and not a demand for tax payers to foot the bill is why O'Reilly commended those that involved themselves. --- On Thu, 4/9/09, sparaig lengli...@cox.net wrote: From: sparaig lengli...@cox.net Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 3:53 PM --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB no_re...@.. . wrote: One of the things I've found most fascinating in all of this post-concert I'm important because something I was once associated with is in the news idiocy is the continuing tendency on the part of the TMO and TMers to not *CARE* who the praise comes from as long as it's praise. I would bet that if they'd gotten a good review of the concert and its goals from Adolf Hitler they'd be putting that in their press releases, too. But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. At least the great Roger Ebert is not giving him a pass on being an idiot. Here is his reaction to Bill's latest hit list. The last line should be read over and over and over by Nabby, Judy, and Off. That's their reaction to this concert hype to a T. Actually, Bill O'Reilly has been getting a LOT of flack from Catholic and other conservative religious blogs about his stance on TM. Which helps convince me of what I've long suspected: he really IS semi-independent from Faux News: They just tolerate him because he happens to agree with their editorial stance so much of the time. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
So silly that I won't even bother to offer evidence to contradict it. Well you should have bothered because you would have found out that he was right. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Act on the Neutrality Acts of the '30s pushed by the Repubs and opposed by Roosevelt. The modern Repub stance of shoot first and ask questions afterwards (or not even ask questions) is only a recent thing and probably only because it's macho. The assumption that you've taken home is that because the Repubs are the party of war they must have been in favor of getting into WWII early on and helping allies as much as possible. Err no.. Read your history.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
On Apr 9, 2009, at 5:21 PM, bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. I think the principle here is similia similibus curentur, like cures like, therefore like seeks like. O'Reilly is naturally attracted to that which is like him: the elitism, sentimentality and puritanical elements of Vedic religion, esp. as expressed and marketed in TM dogma are naturally attractive to a Republican Roman Catholic. Birds of a feather
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Apr 9, 2009, at 5:21 PM, bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. *** I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. I think the principle here is similia similibus curentur, like cures like, therefore like seeks like. O'Reilly is naturally attracted to that which is like him: the elitism, sentimentality and puritanical elements of Vedic religion, esp. as expressed and marketed in TM dogma are naturally attractive to a Republican Roman Catholic. Birds of a feather ** Let's see, marketing TM for atrisk kids in the poorest neighborhoods makes it elitist, describing TM (accurately) as a mechanical technique for expanding awareness makes it sentimental, having a smoking, multiwived (serially) sometimes quasisoftcore-porn artist like David Lynch as your most prominent public spokesman today makes it puritanical.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TMers are so desperate for praise they accept it from Bill O'Reilly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 guyfawke...@... wrote: So silly that I won't even bother to offer evidence to contradict it. Well you should have bothered because you would have found out that he was right. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Act on the Neutrality Acts of the '30s pushed by the Repubs and opposed by Roosevelt. For God's sake, man, Roosevelt ran on a platform of isolationism simply because he knew he wouldn't be elected if his true feelings about Europe were official policy (i.e. that he wanted to intervene). The Left was SOLIDLY behind the Soviet Union which was NOT to fight Hitler; that is, until Hitler broke their pact. The most famous Democrat of them all -- Joseph Kennedy -- was four-square against fighting his pal, Hitler. The modern Repub stance of shoot first and ask questions afterwards (or not even ask questions) is only a recent thing and probably only because it's macho. The assumption that you've taken home is that because the Repubs are the party of war they must have been in favor of getting into WWII early on and helping allies as much as possible. Err no.. Read your history. Err no, you need to read history...
