To clarify, I met with the Supreme Court of Allahabad retired judge who handled
Guru Dev's will (not a lawyer). And yes, he was alive and kicking and quite
brilliant. And, oh yes, he remembered all the details quite clearly. This was
in 1995.
The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat myself, is that both he and
members of the Shankaracaharya ashram had never heard of any poisoning. This
is not opinion, this is fact.
I take offense when Vaj repeatedly makes reference to something that never
appears to have happened to make his opinion right.
As I have also said, if he or anyone else has issues with MMY, thats fine with
me. But if he is going to quote supposed events to make his point, then use
real events, not something he made up.
--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 7:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote:
>
> As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who
> acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged to
> have taken place.
>
> Is that anything like Christian groups who
> go to Israel and speak with people there
> who assure them that Mary was a virgin?
>
> Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who handled SBS's will,
>
> And SBS died over 50 years ago, right?
> And the "lawyer who handled" his will is
> still alive and kicking, eh? And still remembers
> various details? Right.
>
> and traveled to some of various places at issue and spoke with people who
> were contempories of SBS, and M.
>
> And of course all these contemporaries are
> still alive as well.
>
> Vaj's sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting
> on, and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of
> so and so"
>
> That's called opinion~~why is that so
> threatening?
> Sal
>
