--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote:
> 
> > > Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas'
> > > because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids)
> > > that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'?

Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion
until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking
suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got
the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the
TMO look bad?

 This is one of many self-
> > > perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify 
> > > devotion/investment despite waning interest.

BTW, what does "self-perpetuated" mean where
a rumor is concerned? That people don't have
to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself?

> > I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I
> > hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of,
> > and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be
> > telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-)
> 
> Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-)
> 
> It's a rather common TMO myth IME.

Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny
may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is
"putting it forth."

You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting
for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then
attempt to characterize the entire left as out of
line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two.

There's even a name for it now: nutdiving.




 I actually thought it had faded  
> away, until I heard it here a while back. A friend of Rick's 
stated  
> back in May (on FFL):
> 
> "You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative  
> personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about 
Vedic  
> knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who 
went  
> to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL  
> comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, 
the  
> only Rishi in history  who has cognized all the vedas, because 
that  
> would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel  
> comfortable with yourself."
>


Reply via email to