--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 > <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rubbish. This Chopra fellow was kicked out because of his > > > > enormous, > > > > > > rather hardedged ego. And because he got scared by some > little > > > > > > threats to his wife's life, so he chickened out and did > not > > > want > > > > to > > > > > > run as a candidate for NLP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding about the separation of Deepock Chopra from > > > > Maharishi > > > > > was given to me by observers who wish to remain anonymous. > Their > > > > > account was further coroborated to me by one of Chopras > > > assistants. > > > > (I > > > > > realize that this is second hand information and acknowledge > it > > > to > > > > be > > > > > such. I was not there personally to witness this.) > > > > > > > > > > As I understand it, Chopra went to Maharishi and complained > > > about > > > > the > > > > > integrity of the activities of the people in his > (Maharishi's) > > > > > organization. Chopra had also been chastised publicly by a > > > Maharishi > > > > > big-wig for stating his own views that contradicted current > TM > > > > > organization policy - and which had 'publicly' compromised > > > Chopra's > > > > > 'authority'. This was also presented to Maharishi by Chopra. > > > > > > > > > > (Deepock Chopra was, at that time, considered to be the 'heir > > > > > apparent' to Maharishi.) > > > > > > > > > > As I was told, the meeting between Maharishi and Chopra was > very > > > > > strained. Maharishi was grim and Chopra was insistent. > Chopra > > > made > > > > his > > > > > case by saying "I am an intelligent human being and I see > that > > > what > > > > > these people under you are doing is wrong. I can not any > longer > > > > > participate in this without you doing something about it." > And > > > > > Maharishi told him, "I am your master. You will do what I > say." > > > > Chopra > > > > > said, "I cannot accept that you refuse to see the reckless > > > behaviour > > > > > of these people." Maharishi repeated, "I am your master. You > > > will do > > > > > what I say." Chopra looked at him and said, "You are not my > > > master. > > > > I > > > > > am my own master." And he walked out of the room. > > > > > > > > This story confirms what I said about Chopras ego, if true. > > > > But Maharishi saying "I am you master" ? Never heard him say > such > > > a > > > > thing which brings me to believe this is a sketchy story > painted > > > by > > > > the wishful memory of someone who was not present. > > > > > > > in observing the telling of these anecdotes, hearsay seems to > take > > > on the attribute of fact whenever someone wants to confirm their > > > prejudices about Maharishi, either pro or con. The "I am your > > > Master" thing doesn't ring true with me either. > > > > > > Hearsay doesn't necessarily mean the claim is false. > > I agree-- or true. > > I had the > > Maharishi/Chopra meeting corroborated by a Chopra assistant. > > > > Rick has also provided one of other examples he witnessed of > Maharishi > > stating that "I am your master." > > > > What "rings true" for you Jim, can easily be seen as your pro > TMO/pro > > Maharishi bias. You seemingly fail to ever acknowledge any of the > > obvious bullshit involved with either. > > > On a board like this with those that post mostly negative towards > TMO and Maharishi, I sometimes will look for middle ground. Given > the environment, anything other than a negative remark is possibly > seen as a pro bias.
Simple facts speak for themselves. > It is true also that regarding the TMO and > Maharishi I prefer to see the glass half full vs half or entirely > empty. Again. Simple facts speak for themselves. They don't require your preferences of how they should be seen. > Given that they exist at all on the planet at this time, I > see as basically a good thing.
