On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Robert wrote: >> It is odd has he's always there, ready to step up to the mike. I >> suspect where his seeming contradictions with MMY come about is a >> combination of fast, off the cuff writing to an issue with a large >> emotional charge and the need to not--as one of MMY's successors-- >> paint MMY as the scoundrel he was, lest he soil his own silk divan in >> the process. So he's also modifying the actual truth of MMY to both >> allow his own commercial succession and rework-the-guru-as-person in >> his own mind. The combination of an incongruent actor with someone he >> has to parse as a man of enlightened action, just falls apart. >> > May I ask, what Maharishi, ever did to yourself, Vaj... > That you would puch peoples buttons, to call Maharishi a scoundrel... > This not only makes you look foolish, but also, identifies you with > being a scoundrel... > Now, as far as Deepak being a scoudrel, I would agree with that... > As far as Depaak loving power and the power of money, I would agree > with that... > I don't believe that Maharishi can be put in any catagory, that > would have anything to do with being a scoudrel... > That is just over the line, and is a pure lie.
Did you need a list? I'm sorry Rob, I think the reality is that Deepak's scoundrel-ness is just more transparent to you, esp. since he's more an American and appearing as a western-style person--but Mahesh McRishi, being more foreign to you and your admiring pre-disposition for him (along with your projections upon him as a rishi-in-dress), has merely blinded you to his folly(ies). This is common in regards to commercial gurus and Mahesh in particular. He did put on a great show! And of course it wasn't all bad, so that makes it extra confusing, esp. cross-culturally. Actually, historically speaking, Chopra would appear to be the greater sage if we relied on past actions and personal history.
