--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 3:27 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 7:52 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > What I think is hilarious is that Judy has now > > > > pissed away almost all of her posts for the week > > > > "defending" this idea (that I personally think > > > > she made up) that "transcendental meditation" > > > > was a common term at the time Maharishi first > > > > began using it. I'd certainly never heard it > > > > before, and I was personally involved in the > > > > efforts to protect the trademark, once gained. > > > > None of the copyright lawyers I spoke to during > > > > that time had ever heard of it being used before, > > > > either. > > > > > > > > It's just a WONDERFUL exercise in ego gone wild, > > > > the intellectual counterpart of the Girls Gone > > > > Wild videos. I doubt she can ever produce any > > > > instance of this exact term being used before > > > > Maharishi did it, so the *least* she could do > > > > for us is to throw beads at the onlookers as > > > > she dances. :-) :-) :-) > > > > > > > > On the other hand, within a few hours she'll be > > > > out of our hair for the rest of the week, and > > > > people will be able to post again without her > > > > attempting to suck them into arguments. > > > > > > > > > Well I do have to wonder if Anandamayi Moi is the source. But > > > interestingly, the previously discussed idea of non-responsive, > > > introverted samadhi actually occurs before bhavatita in Anandamayi's > > > system, leading one to wonder if MMY got the idea from her, but is > > > missing the same level of depth: > > > > > [...] > > > > Seeing how MMY is one of the people her online biography mentions by > > name, its certain > > that she and he had a close relationship. However, from that, we can > > also take away the > > impression that she felt he was something special in his own right > > and your > > characterization of him as "missing the same level of depth" would > > likely have gone over > > like a lead balloon had you pitched it to her. > > That's the nice thing about being an objective observer, I don't have > to adhere to any of these ideas of people--hundreds of thousands > probably--she probably saw and treated them ALL without difference. I > find it hard to believe she would treat anyone but in utter > equanimity--even a mantra salesman scouting for product. > > But nonetheless, his students never reached the level described in her > writings. >
And you know this because... Lawson
