I have no problem with vastu, I object to Maharishi
co-opting old Indian knowledge to take advantage of
people.
So, you're thinking that MMY 'co-opted' the TM bija
mantras, yet you love all of your bijas? You're not
even making any sense. It has already been established
where
: [FairfieldLife] Re: Talked to Buddha
I have no problem with vastu, I object to Maharishi
co-opting old Indian knowledge to take advantage of
people.
So, you're thinking that MMY 'co-opted' the TM bija
mantras, yet you love all of your bijas? You're not
even making any sense
Jack
Don't take him seriously. Willy is just a corpse-guarding ghost,
like the shriek of a strong wind on a cold day.
Corpse-guarding ghost is the title given in Chan Buddhist circles for
the unfindable 'I' - you know, the one that seems to exist while a
thought is present but can't be traced
You're the guy that collected all the mantras
for thirty years.
mjackson74:
I got three you idiot...
So, you got three Buddhist mantras, but in TM you
get only one mantra. Go figure.
and you are the only one in the world I know of
who believes the TM mantras came from the
emptybill:
Willy claims everything is Buddhist because he feels that way
he can one up the Hindoo-s and thus make himself look
superior.
Well, not everything is Buddhist, but certainly Buddha is the
first historical yogin in South Asia.
Trouble is he uses old, half-baked sources `cause he
mjackson74:
I had a chat with Buddha tonight.
Which one?
He said the vastu was juust right underneath
that banyan tree he picked out.
Apparently you didn't take a World Civ 101 class
at MUM! Do they even offer art history classes up
there?
One informant posting here claims he got a
. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 10:00 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Talked to Buddha
mjackson74:
I had a chat with Buddha tonight.
Which one?
He said the vastu was juust right underneath
that banyan tree he picked out
mjackson74:
You have not stated why you think my statement
of a chat with Buddha is an indication of lack
of basic world history...
Because there's no historical proof that anyone
can dialog with disembodied spirits of the dead?
If you expect anyone to believe that, then your
whole
of people.
From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:10 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Talked to Buddha
mjackson74:
You have not stated why you think my statement
of a chat
and bless those of us in these physical bodies who are so utterly
ignorant cuz our vastu ain't right.
From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:10 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Talked
mjackson74:
I have no problem with vastu, I object to Maharishi
co-opting old Indian knowledge to take advantage of
people.
So, you're thinking that MMY 'co-opted' the TM bija
mantras, yet you love all of your bijas? You're not
even making any sense. It has already been established
where
mjackson74:
...you mean that unless I believe and speak to things
that can be historically proven, then no assertions
of mine will be believed?
No, I mean telling fibs about talking to dead people
like the Buddha is all we need to know in order to cast
doubt on any assertions you make
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 8:52 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Talked to Buddha
mjackson74:
I have no problem with vastu, I object to Maharishi
co-opting old Indian knowledge to take advantage of
people.
So, you're thinking that MMY 'co-opted' the TM bija
mantras, yet
Buddha will tell you differently one day
From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:00 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Talked to Buddha
mjackson74:
...you mean that unless I
14 matches
Mail list logo
