--- In [email protected], "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I could be wrong of course, but I always felt > > > Deepak's writing showed a lack of understanding of > > > Maharishi's teaching. > > > > Another way of looking at it, George, is that > > Chopra *disagrees* with Maharishi's teaching. > > > > That does not imply that he never understood it. > > I have been to a number of Chopra's lectures. After a > few one sees a pattern. He has a few concepts down pat > and then he wings it from there. He is an excellent > public speaker and writer and is able to hide > his lack of scholarly depth. > > I think George is correct here. Chopra lacks the > understanding. He is somewhere on my level.
Very possible. I have neither heard the man speak nor read any of his books, and probably won't. He just doesn't do it for me. I was just presenting a possibility that doesn't seem to have occurred to George. He seems to assume that if Chopra had heard what Maharishi said "properly" he'd be parroting it in his writing and would still believe it. I heard what Maharishi said well enough that I was considered one of the better "advanced lecturers" on the West Coast TM circuit. But not much of Maharishi's stuff has shown up in my writings, and I believe very little of what he said. Then again, that could just be because I lack understanding... :-) Interestingly enough, Stu, having been around the spiritual teacher block a few times in the 30 years since I last saw Maharishi, I would describe *him* the same way you describe Chopra. He had a few introductory concepts down and he spent 50 years winging it and finding different ways of saying them. Compared to Tibetan teachers I've seen and the depth, clarity and precision of their teaching, Maharishi doesn't even come close. Not a slam...it's how I really see him.
