Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
On 3/9/2014 9:12 PM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: Do you think it has anything to do with Hawaii being an awesome tropical paradise, and Tibet being basically a medieval dump, in a desert? Addressing the important issues! Maybe it's time to give back the land you're living on to the Mexicans or the native inhabitants. Free California!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
lol- you too, tex. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 9:12 PM, doctordumbass@... mailto:doctordumbass@... wrote: Do you think it has anything to do with Hawaii being an awesome tropical paradise, and Tibet being basically a medieval dump, in a desert? Addressing the important issues! Maybe it's time to give back the land you're living on to the Mexicans or the native inhabitants. Free California!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 3:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? They had to rip Guru Dev out of the jungle. He knew silence was the most profound help to give to the planet. Ramana Maharshi seems to have been a genuine example of the means form around sattva. All of that organization formed around him and Arunachala even when he discouraged it. On the other hand, Nisargadatta seems to have had much less support of nature, yet I cannot find a single flaw in his words or his spiritual intent -- I consider him Ramana's equal in most ways. Then again, I'm guessing Maharishi, too, was innocent enough when he started. But but but, let's face it, once we're assuming enlightenment to be real -- that is: a living outpost for the mind of God -- all bets are off. I do not agree with your definition of enlightenment. God has nothing to do with it. Why couldn't God decide to use PR to promote a religion? Not that He would HAVE TO DO SO FOR SUCCESS. He does not exist. So, Turk, I'm saying your point is not logical if you're assuming that there is a divinity to be made manifest. I make no such assumption. There is no such thing as divinity, other than the candy of that type. Divinity's agenda, by definition, cannot be gainsaid -- whatever God wants IS GOOD -- even the evil parts. Divinity can have no agenda, because it does not exist. Nor does God. And thus the very concept of good or evil is moot. Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? ...I remember reading that Buddhists consider advertising the most immoral trade because it awakens desires that weren't there before. Be funny if they got a big ad campaign together really. I can't speak for all -- or any -- Buddhists, but I did read a wonderful article in Tricycle a few years ago by a now-Buddhist monk who was previously in the advertising business. He wrote eloquently of the cognitive dissonance it created in him -- trying to *create* desire (that is, after all, the goal of all advertising) -- while believing that desires were one of the biggest pitfalls for most people along the path to enlightenment.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? ... I remember reading that Buddhists consider advertising the most immoral trade because it awakens desires that weren't there before. Be funny if they got a big ad campaign together really. I can't speak for all -- or any -- Buddhists, but I did read a wonderful article in Tricycle a few years ago by a now-Buddhist monk who was previously in the advertising business. He wrote eloquently of the cognitive dissonance it created in him -- trying to *create* desire (that is, after all, the goal of all advertising) -- while believing that desires were one of the biggest pitfalls for most people along the path to enlightenment. Yep, it is fools like him who have kept Buddhism essentially a dead religion. I would so love to take that dude to a strip joint, stick a joint in his mouth, give him a thousand bucks, and see where it goes! What a jerk-off.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
I do not agree with your definition of enlightenment. God has nothing to do with it. The topic title's question assumes that enlightenment is real -- the use of the word if pertains. I was going along with the if. But, still, do we have common ground? Maybe. To me the enlightenment concept can be found being sold to egos, (BAH!) but, to me, an ego is not part of the enlightenment process. Not means ego is not a sentient entity with free-will volition and is merely an object of consciousness. The ego is not the observer of the mind. It is merely one of the objects of consciousness that is sometimes part of the entirety being observed. Do you agree? How about: Do you agree that there is an observer of the mind that is transcendent? If so, is that transcendent worthy of the word, divinity? My most recent effort to prove divinity is my espousal of the truths about radiation as seen in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=XVBEwn6iWOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=XVBEwn6iWOo The video shows science at its best discovering that light has the property of ordering reality. To me, that means light has a core AS IF BUILT IN agenda -- not that that agenda is mindful but that it is a real physical dynamic and drives evolution. Why light would have these properties would be an open question. Since I feel like my mind has an observer, why not nature itself having an observer also? To me, it is not a stretch to assume that the observer is sentient and is transcendent to all manifestations. Enlightenment is to be non-resistive to the ordering principals of light. -- I think this statement can be defended. He does not exist. Are you merely referring to the gender-pronoun? If so, fine, say her or it, as you please. If you're rejecting the concept that divinity could be made manifest in an all powerful personality, then probably I agree with you -- not that God, let's say, Krishna as an example, does not exist BUT THAT KRISHNA'S MIND WOULD HAVE AN OBSERVER OF HIS MIND THAT IS EQUAL TO ANYONE'S OBSERVER. The same Self. AND: THAT KRISHNA -- AS EGO -- WAS NO MORE DIVINE THAN ANY EGO. Except that Krishna's ego could be said to be n0n-resistive Divinity's agenda, by definition, cannot be gainsaid -- whatever God wants IS GOOD -- even the evil parts. Divinity can have no agenda, because it does not exist. Nor does God. And thus the very concept of good or evil is moot. To me good and evil are relative to the ego -- divinity would be beyond both values. Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? I do not agree with your definition of enlightenment. God has nothing to do with it. The topic title's question assumes that enlightenment is real -- the use of the word if pertains. I was going along with the if. But, still, do we have common ground? Maybe. Maybe. But NOT if you come blazing in with a stiff dick and start making assumptions about things that I have to agree to before we start. I said what I did before because you honestly seem to have no idea who you're talking to. To me the enlightenment concept can be found being sold to egos, Not to mention *by* egos. In all of human history, there has never been a religion or a spiritual tradition started and proselytized by anything other *than* a human. God has never had anything to do with it. It was all MEN, and the occasional woman. (BAH!) but, to me, an ego is not part of the enlightenment process. Not means ego is not a sentient entity with free-will volition and is merely an object of consciousness. The ego is not the observer of the mind. It is merely one of the objects of consciousness that is sometimes part of the entirety being observed. Do you agree? I don't really give a shit. How about: Do you agree that there is an observer of the mind that is transcendent? No. If so... Stop there. I say No. ...is that transcendent worthy of the word, divinity? My most recent effort to prove divinity is my espousal of the truths about radiation as seen in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=XVBEwn6iWOo The only thing worthy of the term divinity is the candy I posted a photo of earlier. The video shows science at its best discovering that light has the property of ordering reality. To me, that means light has a core AS IF BUILT IN agenda -- not that that agenda is mindful but that it is a real physical dynamic and drives evolution. Why light would have these properties would be an open question. Since I feel like my mind has an observer, why not nature itself having an observer also? To me, it is not a stretch to assume that the observer is sentient and is transcendent to all manifestations. Enlightenment is to be non-resistive to the ordering principals of light. -- I think this statement can be defended. Then go and defend it with someone who gives a shit. He does not exist. Are you merely referring to the gender-pronoun? If so, fine, say her or it, as you please. If you're rejecting the concept that divinity could be made manifest in an all powerful personality, then probably I agree with you -- not that God, let's say, Krishna as an example, does not exist BUT THAT KRISHNA'S MIND WOULD HAVE AN OBSERVER OF HIS MIND THAT IS EQUAL TO ANYONE'S OBSERVER. The same Self. Let me make myself clearer: GOD does not exist. It's a figment of your imagination. No argument you can possibly make that presupposes His/Her/Its existence can possibly be relevant, if I do not accept the basic premise of God's existence. I do not. AND: THAT KRISHNA -- AS EGO -- WAS NO MORE DIVINE THAN ANY EGO. Except that Krishna's ego could be said to be n0n-resistive Do you really *believe* this horseshit? I do not. Therefore, you cannot use your belief as a trump card. Divinity's agenda, by definition, cannot be gainsaid -- whatever God wants IS GOOD -- even the evil parts. Divinity can have no agenda, because it does not exist. Nor does God. And thus the very concept of good or evil is moot. To me good and evil are relative to the ego -- divinity would be beyond both values. I will agree with you that divinity is beyond all three -- good, evil, and ego. But because it doesn't exist. Never has, never will. Do you get yet who you're talking to, Edg? Don't try to run these sophomoric bullshit raps on me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? ... I remember reading that Buddhists consider advertising the most immoral trade because it awakens desires that weren't there before. Be funny if they got a big ad campaign together really. I can't speak for all -- or any -- Buddhists, but I did read a wonderful article in Tricycle a few years ago by a now-Buddhist monk who was previously in the advertising business. He wrote eloquently of the cognitive dissonance it created in him -- trying to *create* desire (that is, after all, the goal of all advertising) -- while believing that desires were one of the biggest pitfalls for most people along the path to enlightenment. Does that include the desire to become desireless?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? I do not agree with your definition of enlightenment. God has nothing to do with it. The topic title's question assumes that enlightenment is real -- the use of the word if pertains. I was going along with the if. But, still, do we have common ground? Maybe. Maybe. But NOT if you come blazing in with a stiff dick and start making assumptions about things that I have to agree to before we start. I said what I did before because you honestly seem to have no idea who you're talking to. To me the enlightenment concept can be found being sold to egos, Not to mention *by* egos. In all of human history, there has never been a religion or a spiritual tradition started and proselytized by anything other *than* a human. God has never had anything to do with it. It was all MEN, and the occasional woman. (BAH!) but, to me, an ego is not part of the enlightenment process. Not means ego is not a sentient entity with free-will volition and is merely an object of consciousness. The ego is not the observer of the mind. It is merely one of the objects of consciousness that is sometimes part of the entirety being observed. Do you agree? I don't really give a shit. How about: Do you agree that there is an observer of the mind that is transcendent? No. If so... Stop there. I say No. ...is that transcendent worthy of the word, divinity? My most recent effort to prove divinity is my espousal of the truths about radiation as seen in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=XVBEwn6iWOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=XVBEwn6iWOo The only thing worthy of the term divinity is the candy I posted a photo of earlier. The video shows science at its best discovering that light has the property of ordering reality. To me, that means light has a core AS IF BUILT IN agenda -- not that that agenda is mindful but that it is a real physical dynamic and drives evolution. Why light would have these properties would be an open question. Since I feel like my mind has an observer, why not nature itself having an observer also? To me, it is not a stretch to assume that the observer is sentient and is transcendent to all manifestations. Enlightenment is to be non-resistive to the ordering principals of light. -- I think this statement can be defended. Then go and defend it with someone who gives a shit. He does not exist. Are you merely referring to the gender-pronoun? If so, fine, say her or it, as you please. If you're rejecting the concept that divinity could be made manifest in an all powerful personality, then probably I agree with you -- not that God, let's say, Krishna as an example, does not exist BUT THAT KRISHNA'S MIND WOULD HAVE AN OBSERVER OF HIS MIND THAT IS EQUAL TO ANYONE'S OBSERVER. The same Self. Let me make myself clearer: GOD does not exist. It's a figment of your imagination. No argument you can possibly make that presupposes His/Her/Its existence can possibly be relevant, if I do not accept the basic premise of God's existence. I do not. AND: THAT KRISHNA -- AS EGO -- WAS NO MORE DIVINE THAN ANY EGO. Except that Krishna's ego could be said to be n0n-resistive Do you really *believe* this horseshit? I do not. Therefore, you cannot use your belief as a trump card. Divinity's agenda, by definition, cannot be gainsaid -- whatever God wants IS GOOD -- even the evil parts. Divinity can have no agenda, because it does not exist. Nor does God. And thus the very concept of good or evil is moot. To me good and evil are relative to the ego -- divinity would be beyond both values. I will agree with you that divinity is beyond all three -- good, evil, and ego. But because it doesn't exist. Never has, never will. Do you get yet who you're talking to, Edg? Don't try to run these sophomoric bullshit raps on me. Why so defensive Bawwy? Gee, and you might wonder why no one here ever wants to engage in any conversation with you (but you won't). You are a socially inept imbecile who, when confronted with an opportunity to engage in something resembling intelligent dialogue, spits in the face of the other person and essentially tells them to fuck off. Go find a soapbox, there you can stand above the rest of the crowd and talk your fool head off and never have to answer to anyone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
Aaand, that's why it's hard to reply to you, Turk. Your anger and resentment towards me when I am only trying to get things clearer about how folks define their words is, well, sick. Sucks to be you, eh? Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
If you were being honest about trying to find some common ground, you could back up and try to talk about the concept of enlightenment without *ever* bringing the concept of God into it. I can do that. Why can't you? Don't you get it? I believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment, as it has been described in some (but not all) spiritual traditions. I've even experienced glimpses of it. But I don't see any need to bring the concept of a God into the discussion, because to me that concept has NO relevance to the concept of enlightenment. From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? Aaand, that's why it's hard to reply to you, Turk. Your anger and resentment towards me when I am only trying to get things clearer about how folks define their words is, well, sick. Sucks to be you, eh? Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
Ah ha, Ann. Very nice. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? ... I remember reading that Buddhists consider advertising the most immoral trade because it awakens desires that weren't there before. Be funny if they got a big ad campaign together really. I can't speak for all -- or any -- Buddhists, but I did read a wonderful article in Tricycle a few years ago by a now-Buddhist monk who was previously in the advertising business. He wrote eloquently of the cognitive dissonance it created in him -- trying to *create* desire (that is, after all, the goal of all advertising) -- while believing that desires were one of the biggest pitfalls for most people along the path to enlightenment. Does that include the desire to become desireless?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
On 3/9/2014 9:22 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: hoping for a free Tibet. Just not my bag of rocks, I guess. I'd rather laugh at you guys.:-) Apparently you've got a brain problem situation on your hands. Tibet was the world's only, and probably last, civilization to be totally based on meditation. A free Tibet is exactly what MMY was trying to accomplish! We can laugh at some of the guys here since they're probably doing nothing to promote a Free Tibet, or a free anywhere else, I guess, but it's really not a laughing matter considering we are on the brink of WW III. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
On 3/9/2014 10:17 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: He wrote eloquently of the cognitive dissonance it created in him -- trying to *create* desire (that is, after all, the goal of all advertising) -- while believing that desires were one of the biggest pitfalls for most people along the path to enlightenment. Get a grip! All Buddhist art is PR. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
On 3/9/2014 11:49 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't really give a shit. This very impressive! Good work, Barry.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
On 3/9/2014 12:00 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Your anger and resentment towards me when I am only trying to get things clearer about how folks define their words is, well, sick. You should read what the TB said to me in one of our first dialogs back in the day on Usenet, not to mention what Judy called me a few years ago! Apparently what you wrote is way above the TB's level - I don't think he knows even a single phrase from the Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
On 3/9/2014 12:34 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: while believing that desires were one of the biggest pitfalls for most people along the path to enlightenment. */ /* *Does that include the desire to become desireless? * Base desire works very subtly, not merely because desires are emotively imprecise, but especially because the desire to prevent desiring more than will be attained is itself unconsciously desired too much. For whenever one desires to stop 'desiring more than will be attained', this additional, deeper desire also becomes a desire for more stopping than will be attained. Thus this additional, deeper desire requires its own additional, still deeper desire to stop desiring more stopping than will be attained.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
Moving there soon, are you? If not, why not? Yep, that's what I thought. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 9:22 AM, doctordumbass@... mailto:doctordumbass@... wrote: hoping for a free Tibet. Just not my bag of rocks, I guess. I'd rather laugh at you guys.:-) Apparently you've got a brain problem situation on your hands. Tibet was the world's only, and probably last, civilization to be totally based on meditation. A free Tibet is exactly what MMY was trying to accomplish! We can laugh at some of the guys here since they're probably doing nothing to promote a Free Tibet, or a free anywhere else, I guess, but it's really not a laughing matter considering we are on the brink of WW III. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR? I do not agree with your definition of enlightenment. God has nothing to do with it. The topic title's question assumes that enlightenment is real -- the use of the word if pertains. I was going along with the if. But, still, do we have common ground? Maybe. Maybe. But NOT if you come blazing in with a stiff dick and start making assumptions about things that I have to agree to before we start. I said what I did before because you honestly seem to have no idea who you're talking to. To me the enlightenment concept can be found being sold to egos, Not to mention *by* egos. In all of human history, there has never been a religion or a spiritual tradition started and proselytized by anything other *than* a human. God has never had anything to do with it. It was all MEN, and the occasional woman. (BAH!) but, to me, an ego is not part of the enlightenment process. Not means ego is not a sentient entity with free-will volition and is merely an object of consciousness. The ego is not the observer of the mind. It is merely one of the objects of consciousness that is sometimes part of the entirety being observed. Do you agree? I don't really give a shit. How about: Do you agree that there is an observer of the mind that is transcendent? No. If so... Stop there. I say No. ...is that transcendent worthy of the word, divinity? My most recent effort to prove divinity is my espousal of the truths about radiation as seen in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=XVBEwn6iWOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=XVBEwn6iWOo The only thing worthy of the term divinity is the candy I posted a photo of earlier. The video shows science at its best discovering that light has the property of ordering reality. To me, that means light has a core AS IF BUILT IN agenda -- not that that agenda is mindful but that it is a real physical dynamic and drives evolution. Why light would have these properties would be an open question. Since I feel like my mind has an observer, why not nature itself having an observer also? To me, it is not a stretch to assume that the observer is sentient and is transcendent to all manifestations. Enlightenment is to be non-resistive to the ordering principals of light. -- I think this statement can be defended. Then go and defend it with someone who gives a shit. He does not exist. Are you merely referring to the gender-pronoun? If so, fine, say her or it, as you please. If you're rejecting the concept that divinity could be made manifest in an all powerful personality, then probably I agree with you -- not that God, let's say, Krishna as an example, does not exist BUT THAT KRISHNA'S MIND WOULD HAVE AN OBSERVER OF HIS MIND THAT IS EQUAL TO ANYONE'S OBSERVER. The same Self. Let me make myself clearer: GOD does not exist. It's a figment of your imagination. No argument you can possibly make that presupposes His/Her/Its existence can possibly be relevant, if I do not accept the basic premise of God's existence. I do not. AND: THAT KRISHNA -- AS EGO -- WAS NO MORE DIVINE THAN ANY EGO. Except that Krishna's ego could be said to be n0n-resistive Do you really *believe* this horseshit? I do not. Therefore, you cannot use your belief as a trump card. Divinity's agenda, by definition, cannot be gainsaid -- whatever God wants IS GOOD -- even the evil parts. Divinity can have no agenda, because it does not exist. Nor does God. And thus the very concept of good or evil is moot. To me good and evil are relative to the ego -- divinity would be beyond both values. I will agree with you that divinity is beyond all three -- good, evil, and ego. But because it doesn't exist. Never has, never will. Do you get yet who you're talking to, Edg? Don't try to run these sophomoric bullshit raps on me. Why so defensive Bawwy? Gee, and you might wonder why no one here ever wants to engage in any conversation with you (but you won't). You are a socially inept imbecile who, when confronted with an opportunity to engage in something resembling intelligent dialogue, spits in the face of the other person and essentially tells them to fuck off. Go find a soapbox, there you can stand above the rest of the crowd and talk your fool head off and never have to answer to anyone. Personally, I think he makes this shit up, to avoid responsibility. He feels the heat internally, but with this brainwashed little bumper-sticker (no good/no god/no evil) in his mind, he can chalk anything up to randomness, and continue his not quite clueless charade. Unlike
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
On 3/9/2014 8:30 PM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: Moving there soon, are you? If not, why not? Yep, that's what I thought. Free Tibet, the inspiration for MMY's Global Country of World Peace, should have been invincible. The only way that is going to happen now is for you to practice TM twice a day without fail - that is what will free Tibet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Would an enlightened being need PR?
I'd like to, but I am already hard at work, freeing the Hawaiian Islands, which were brought into the US, at the same time Tibet was reunited with China - 1959. So, how come no one wants to give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians, but all these Americans are screaming for a Free Tibet?? Do you think it has anything to do with Hawaii being an awesome tropical paradise, and Tibet being basically a medieval dump, in a desert? I do. Pass the suntan lotion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 8:30 PM, doctordumbass@... mailto:doctordumbass@... wrote: Moving there soon, are you? If not, why not? Yep, that's what I thought. Free Tibet, the inspiration for MMY's Global Country of World Peace, should have been invincible. The only way that is going to happen now is for you to practice TM twice a day without fail - that is what will free Tibet.
