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.
(Except that you ought to be able to tell just from reading what I've said and what he says.) Richard trolled: > > If you needed any proof that Judy is an ankle-biter, here you have it. > > Here you have Judy defending a paperback book and some disgruntled > > skin-boys, and she wants you to believe things based on hearsay. Nobody > > has any proof that MMY had sexual relations with anyone. And, that's the > > bottom line. It's all stuff made up by rumor-mongers of the lowest sort. Judy is no TMer, that's obvious. Let's put her files in the FFL dump folder and just ignore her. That's what I think, and I've read every book about MMY that has ever been published, Judy has not. > > On 12/11/2013 8:03 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: It's not "judicious" that Richard keeps calling me a liar, actually. That's just trolling, stuff Richard made up. It's interesting, though, that he hasn't said a word about your having told falsehoods about my September 2012 post that you refuse to admit to. Why do you think that is? As to whether Maharishi had affairs with his students, have you read Judith Bourque's book? Or the many accounts from his skinboys? Share pandered: > > Buck I agree that Richard's was judicious writing on a tough subject. > > Thanks to both you guys...< < On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:10 PM, Richard J. Williams <punditster@...> mailto:punditster@... wrote: By now I think we know who the real ankle-biters on FFL are: one is the owner, one is the editor, and the other two have left the group for their own reasons. We will probably never know for sure what happened between the participants because MMY is gone, and he can't be cross-examined. I think it was very unfair that Judith waited until after MMY passed to make her claims - that way she could not be be contradicted. There are a few still left here who would take any opportunity to denigrate our teacher and try to confuse us as to the truth about our spiritual path and MMY's teachings. One is a long-time informant who persists in her insidious and false claims on this and other subjects. Go figure. On 12/10/2013 9:42 PM, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: RJ, This is good judicious writing about a tough subject. Thanks for the short take on this circumstance with Maharishi. I sense a lot of people now look back on it this way too. I feel he did some pretty large great things with lasting affect and may have blown the potential of it all also with this too. Evidently he was also a high risk kind of guy and very human. Some of the real hurt neganauts will proly never forgive or forget by nature. Different people filter and deal with dissonance differently. Seems that what you write here is fair reconciliation of a middle ground between complete deniers on the one hand and complete haters on the other. Thanks, I appreciate the writing attempt at some rationale in between. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, what would MMY's sexual activty, or lack of it, have to do with your spiritual progress on the path to being a siddha? Go figure. So far as I can tell, there is not one single shred of evidence that MMY engaged in any improper sexual activities relating to his relations with his students. But, even assuming that MMY did engage in acts of a private, sexual nature, why do you suppose some ankle-biters would want to dwell on the unsubstantiated rumors contained in a paperback book? It just doesn't make any sense. It is interesting that, in contrast to the confessions of Judith Bourque, another previous MMY secretary, Conny Larsson, writes nothing about any observed personal sexual activities pertaining to MMY. Judith was a TM meditator who was initated in Sweden alomg with Conny Larsson. Her experiences with the TM technique inspired her to enroll in the Maharishi's teacher training course at his academy in India. So, in Judith travelled to India to study under the Maharishi and to become a TM Teacher - this was at the 1968 Rishikesh TTC. According to Bourque, she became more than just a student at the academy - she became the Maharishi's private secretary and more. In fact, Judith says she fell in love with the Maharishi! At the completion of the course Judith was appointed to be the Maharishi's "private secretary", although Judith had exactly zero experience or training to do secretarial work having no training higher than that of a clerk, if that. Go figure. So, Bourque spent two years working for the MMY, first at the TTC in Rishikesh in 1968, and later in Switzerland, until TTC 1970. According to Bourque, she had sexual relations with the him, on numerous occasions during that time. Apparently she was infatuated with MMY. As part of her compensation MMY bought her a few saris and some jewelry to wear in order to cover up her nakedness. She was one of the Maharishi's 'inner circle', which included Jerry Jarvis and Ms. Jemima Pittman. This was after the Beatles and after the formation of SIMS. But, the real question is: Is there anything wrong with getting naked and having "naked sex" on a bear-skin rug? Why not just be open about it and tell everyone you want to screw the guru so you can get closer to him than anyone else - get some power so you can boss people around? Work cited: 'Robes of Silk Feet of Clay' By Judith Bourque p. 34 Ned to Casey: FairfieldLife/message/251652 Other titles of interest: 'God's Little Clown' By Conny Larsson On 12/9/2013 10:44 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > The next biggest favor I ever got was when Rick shared here on FFL and > with me in a couple messages he reasons for believing Marshy was a > sexual active person
