--- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > All fine except the person Richard Nelson is referencing was > connected to SBS, not Maharishi. So where's the motive to put > a positive spin on it especially when according to Vaj, those > closest to SBS absolutely despised MMY? But I guess you can > arrange facts in any way you want. This person lies (if his > account is contrary to your views.) This person is telling > the truth (if it jibes with want to want to hear) And the > only problem with this, is that Richards provides names, > places and times, and Vaj provides anonymous sources.
Steve, I give up. You're beyond discussing things with. Richard did NOT give either a name or a place, merely a year. He made another vague, unverifiable claim. And you not only never noticed, you claimed otherwise. > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 2011, at 1:04 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > And the members of the ashram~~if they even > > > exist~~were objective observers and would > > > have been completely forthcoming if they > > > *had* known of some shenanigans? Come > > > on~~better to sweep anything still out under > > > the carpet rather than open themselves > > > up for questioning. > > > > > > > This is not opinion, this is fact. > > > > > > It's also India, where people will say > > > anything rather than deal with > > > unpleasantness. > > > > Or deal with the idea that a "guru" was corrupt or > > that his behavior could require censure. For years > > it's been impossible for complainants to pursue any > > legal action against the pervert Sathya Sai Baba > > because the leader of India was a devotee and > > intervened to quash any such attempts. > > > > > Sounds like > > > you feel for it hook, line and > > > stinker. And now you feel > > > people should accord your words > > > magic powers and not question > > > anything you say, because you supposedly > > > spoke to a judge, THE judge in > > > this case. Even if true, your opinion > > > is still worth no more than anyone > > > else's. Get over your self. > > > > Case in point, re Richard's supposed "source." I knew > > both of Frederic Lenz's - Rama's lawyers pretty well. > > We called them "the Normans," because they both had > > the same first name. > > > > After the guy croaked himself, I had occasion to listen > > to both of them talk about him. Both said things that > > were absolute falsehoods, and could have been proven to > > be in court. I knew this because they referenced incidents > > that I had been involved in, and legal papers that *they > > had written*. Both KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that > > what they were saying about him in this talk were not true; > > they had written the legal documents -- still on file -- > > that disproved what they were saying. But they said it > > anyway. > > > > Why? Because they had that "devotee mindset" going for > > them. They had been wrapped by his charisma while he was > > alive, and they were still wrapped by it after he killed > > himself. For example, speaking to a group of his former > > students, neither could bring themselves to actually > > refer to his death as a suicide. They -- lawyers who had > > never studied with him -- called it the same thing the > > True Believers they were speaking to called it, his > > "Mahasamadhi." > > > > So do I believe Richard Nelson? I'm willing to believe > > he might have met such a person. Do I believe what this > > alleged person said is fact? Yeah, right. > > >
