Ok, forget about the famous meditator references. My main point is the contradiction between representing Maharishi as bad in the film but glorifying the man in the sandals. Can't have it both ways. The sandals are more valuable when worn by someone of high regard. Mark did not speak well of Maharishi in the film.
--- In [email protected], "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > > > The idea you are floating here, that the loyal devotees became wealthy and > those who criticized ended up poor, is plain daft. > > --- In [email protected], tedadams108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm a little confused. Is this the same Mark Landau who spoke such unkind > > words about Maharishi in the film "David Wants To Fly."? When attempting to > > sell Maharishi's sandals there are no unkind words spoken, only glorifying > > words, probably as an attempt to increase the marketability of the sandals. > > I have compassion for Mark that he is having financial > > challenges in this economy, like so many others. Apparently his > > involvement with Maharishi did not result in financial well being > > as it did for so many others (John Gray, Barbara DeAngeles, Deepak Chopra, > > etc., and the many wealthy meditators living in Fairfield and around the > > world. Maybe it's more difficult to get Nature Support when one cavils > > about the Master. I'm sure someone would > > appreciate having the sandals and would be willing to pay something > > for them. My guess is that the only value to Mark would be for firewood. > > >
