His pro-military stance caused some people to abandon the process. This seem be because they had an ideological predisposition that was inflexible. Thus they could not dismiss his statements as irrelevant.
The problem with "personal ideology" is that it changes over time, often becoming less strident as we gain more experience. The so-called Raja-s cannot change because they have nothing else. The rest of us are used to deciding for ourselves. Unless, of course, it concerns Allah and his messenger, the Rasul. ************************************ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of emptybill > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 10:19 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The End of the Rishi > > > > > > Back in 1971 on the Humbolt TTC, MMY insisted that it was our duty to go and > fight if called to join the conflict in Vietnam. A lot of people dismissed > it, attributing this view to his Indian background and the fact that he was > Kshatriya caste. I have since learned that in "Vedic parlance" the view is > that all of the karma of a war goes to the "king" . in this case to the > President and Congressional "rulers". > > At the Amherst SCI course, the month before that, in the presence of General > Davis, someone asked about the atomic bomb. MMY's response was that we > should make sure we have bigger bombs. With Buckminster Fuller on stage, > someone asked about apartheid in S. Africa. MMY said people should respect > and obey the law of the land. >
