I don't believe for a second, Barry, that you take Richard seriously. Rather, you take me VERY seriously, and you're continuing to stalk me. So I really shouldn't accede to your request. But it's so laughably simple, I will.
(Oh, by the way, you failed Emily's test miserably. You were unable to hold off stalking me for even two weeks--it's been only four days.) Here's Richard's original troll: > Yogi Bhajan says that "Kundalini energy is technically explained as being > sparked during yogic breathing > when prana and apana blends at the 3rd chakra (naval center) at which point > it initially drops down to the > 1st and 2nd chakras before traveling up to the spine to the higher centers > of the brain to activate the > golden cord - the connection between the pituitary and pineal glands - and > penetrate the 7 chakras." > However, this technique was denigrated by Judy in a somewhat inane post > denying that MMY bijas were > the nicknames of the Istadevatas. Go figure. Richard never was able to document his claim that I "denigrated" the technique he describes. I don't know anything about the technique, had never heard of it, would have had no reason to "denigrate" it. Nor has he come up with any documentation that I denied that "MMY bijas were the nicknames of the Istadevatas." I don't know (as I said in the quote he keeps posting) what "nicknames" might even mean in this context. But the bijas are not, as I said in the other quote Richard keeps posting, the names of the personal gods; they have perfectly good names of their own (Lakshmi, Saraswati, etc.). Maharishi said in Beacon Light that the bijas are the "mantras" of personal gods, not the names of personal gods. For reference, here are the two quotes from my posts as Richard has posted them: "...the TM mantras are *not* the names of the Hindu gods. The Hindu gods have perfectly good names of their own." And: "Richard is lying. I never said anything about 'the technique,' whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't 'nicknames' of the deities (whatever 'nicknames' means in this context)." Any questions? Anybody see any lies or fibs (except from Richard)? Feeling a little silly, Barry? After all that huffing and puffing? BTW, Barry, just for the recordI, failing to keep a promise does not make the promise a lie unless it can be shown that the person who made it never intended to keep it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote: > > Let's make this real simple so everyone understands: > > NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're > posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have > any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY. I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this "detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one. Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that very offer just below. I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography and footnotes. :-) > On 12/9/2013 12:51 PM, authfriend@... wrote: > > > > This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except > > Xeno) takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, > > let me know. > > > > > > Richard wrote: > > > > > Maybe Share is waiting to see if you'll explain NOT saying the bijas > > are the nicknames of the deities and why you're mixing working and > > posting to a discussion group at the same time. > > > > On 12/9/2013 11:08 AM, authfriend@ > > > >> So you've made up your mind to die with the sin of bearing false > >> witness (one of the Big Ten) on your soul? In your mind, that's > >> preferable to confessing? > >> > >> > >> (And as you know, "sub specie aeternitatis" has nothing to do with > >> scolding, so that's yet more false witness.) > >> > >> > >> Share did her phony innocent lightheartedness act: > >> > >> >But Richard, you gotta give Judy points, or something, for scolding > >> me in Latin!Google is my new best friend, along with eternity (-: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Monday, December 9, 2013 8:56 AM, Richard J. Williams > >> punditster@ > >> This message has all the earmarks of you sitting at your > >> computer in > >> a home office posting replies whenever the "ding" goes off, alerting > >> you that someone posted to FFL. > >> > >> So, which is it? Did you say the TM mantras are NOT the names of the > >> personal gods; or did you NOT say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of > >> the deities? Go figure. > >> > >> "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," > >> whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" > >> of the deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)." > >> > >> From: authfriend > >> Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa > >> Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife > >> Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM > >> > >> On 12/9/2013 8:36 AM, authfriend@ > >> > >>> This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes > >>> Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. > >>> > >>> Richard trolled: > >>> > >>> > Maybe Share is waiting for you to admit you told a fib about the > >>> TM mantras being the names of the Hindu personal gods. > >>> > >>> On 12/9/2013 8:03 AM, authfriend@ > >>> > >>>> Do you think this "last resolve" for you, Share, will include > >>>> confessing and repenting of the falsehoods you've told on FFL? Or > >>>> are you just going to pretend they don't count, pretend they're > >>>> only a matter of seeing things differently, and take a chance > >>>> you'll get away with them sub specie aeternitatis? > >>>> > >>>> Share exclaimed: > >>>> > >>>> > Wow, Buck, what a great rousing hymn to begin the week with, thanks > >>>> > for posting. > >>>> > >>>> >
