Goodness Judy, that's twice you've been wrong in the recent past. Smiley face.
>________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:42 AM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> Just a figure of speech, conversational, if I really "hated >> to say it," I wouldn't have said it. Smile. > >I'm wrong again. "Figure of speech" would have been my >second wild guess, though. ;-) > >> > From: Share Long >> >To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> >> >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:24 AM >> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily >> > >> > >> > >> >Emily, what is it you hate to say? And why? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >________________________________ >> > From: Emily Reyn >> >To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> >> >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:01 PM >> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back >> > >> > >> > >> >I read it and the comments last night; hate to say, but leaving Maharishi >> >and the TMO out, benefits from TM come across.  >> > >> > >> > >> >>________________________________ >> >> From: Michael Jackson >> >>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> >> >>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:51 AM >> >>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Oh by the way, why not go visit the New York Times magazine article on >> >>Raja David and his band of con artists again and see how many post there >> >>are. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>________________________________ >> >> From: authfriend >> >>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> >>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM >> >>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: >> >>> >> >>> While I do not want to get into this particular sparring match >> >>> between MJ and JS about whether TM is a devotional practice or >> >>> not, >> >> >> >>What Michael and I are actually "sparring" about is >> >>Michael's unwillingness--or inability--to address the >> >>case emptybill made that TM is not a devotional >> >>practice. >> >> >> >>> the following link points to a few pages of Maharishi's Theory >> >>> of Spiritual development from 1955, which is the earliest >> >>> document I know of that describes his system of meditation. >> >> >> >>Actually the link doesn't "point to" anything. It doesn't >> >>work (HTTP 404). >> >> >> >>> This is a PDF document, an excerpt from 'Beacon Light of the >> >>> Himalayas'. >> >> >> >>And I'll just bet it's the excerpt in which Maharishi says: >> >> >> >>"...We find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the >> >>mind to become sharp. But we do not select any sound like 'mike', >> >>flower, table, pen, wall etc. because such ordinary sounds can >> >>do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there >> >>are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of >> >>producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial >> >>to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not >> >>select any word at random. For our practice we select only the >> >>suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the >> >>grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of >> >>life." >> >> >> >>Right? >> >> >> >>> Because the TMO did not exist then, and this was published without a >> >>> copyright, I will assume it is in the public domain. >> >>> >> >>> http://bit.ly/YQmNKW >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
