C'mon--"Marshy didn't write his commentary - he had a TM'er write it for him" sure doesn't convey the idea of a collaboration. It sure does sound as if you're saying Katz wrote it by himself, whether you used those exact words or not.
I didn't say he wrote it by himself Maharishi didn't just sort of send Vernon Katz off on his own to write the commentary from scratch. According to Katz, it was an extremely close day-to-day collaboration, with Maharishi supplying the thoughts and he and Katz deciding together how to put them into words on the page. That's not to minimize Katz's contribution, which was substantial, but it's incorrect to suggest he wrote the commentary by himself. Also, it isn't established fact that Maharishi "distorted" the Gita. Every translation/commentary reflects the consciousness, knowledge, and understanding of the translator/commentator. There's no one definitive overall meaning that one can determine from the various versions, or even find in the original Sanskrit. Maharishi may well have tweaked his version here and there to bring out more strongly and clearly what he wanted to teach about TM, but whether that constitutes "distortion" is a matter of opinion. For all we know, he may have brought out what others had missed or misinterpreted. Anyone who reads versions of the Gita other than the Marshy version will know that Marshy distorted a good deal of it to funnel people's awareness to believe that it was all about TM. That's not what the Gita says. And marshy didn't write his commentary - he had a TM'er write it for him, Vernon Katz I think it was.
