--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You have got to be kidding. That's how an enlightened > fart greets what may well be very useful new > knowledge? And where's the harm in honest inquiry?
I think it's important to remember that this is the guy who has stated that he would prefer to believe that several people who told audiences of TMers in advanced lectures and at residence courses that they were NOT in CC or any other higher state were LYING about it to these TMers, rather than believe that they were simply telling the truth about not being enlightened. I think that says it all, don't you? What Jim wants to believe is what's important. What anyone else has to say about what he wants to believe -- even the principals themselves -- is simply not important, and can be disregarded. In other words, we're back to the solipsism thang. As for freerad, same thing exactly. He "knows" what he "knows," and any criticism of what he "knows" and his methodology for "knowing" it is irrelevant and mere ignorance. Same with Lou and his "vision" of Hill and Obama as a team surrounded with light. It is *perfectly* valid for him, just as the "predictions" on his website (the ones that he doesn't remove as soon as they have been proven untrue, that is) are "95% accurate," or whatever the figure is that he claims. The issue here in all three cases in my opinion is the tendency to believe that one's "inner vision" or "intuition" or (basically) beliefs or wishes are "true" and everything else is false. The beliefs or wishes *cannot* be "disproved," and anyone who challenges them is ignorant and mounting a personal attack on the true "seer." In my book *this* constitutes ignorance. YMMV. > --- sandiego108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > freeradicalfederation > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > "sandiego108" <sandiego108@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Aha! Now we're getting somewhere-- it is the > > physical movement > > > > associated with the flying technique and/or the > > thinking at > > subtle > > > > levels that cause this effect. Just TM won't do > > it, but the > > Sidhis > > > > will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My data indicate that TM alone will increase IOP. > > TM-Sidhis has > > > resulted in the largest increase measured so far. > > But regular old > > TM > > > will also increase IOP and if TM were done from an > > hour or so who > > > knows if it might also increase IOP just as much > > as the Sidhis. We > > > have never tested that and neither has anyone > > else. > > > > > > >Nothing to worry about thuogh as it will quickly > > subside post > > > > practice. > > > > > > That's just plain bad advice and completely > > unfounded. You have no > > way > > > of knowing if your statement is true. > > > > So let me get this right-- the TM-sidhis program has > > been around for > > decades, and TM longer than that. The sutras used in > > the Sidhis > > program have been around centuries, at least, and > > the same with the > > mantra practice of TM. > > > > And you expect people to believe that there is a > > significant risk of > > developing blindness as a result of these practices, > > that no one has > > figured out before? > > > > Dude, just get lost. > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
