Vernon Katz was translator and transcriber, not commentator. And MMY would insist that a different word be used in the translation and Katz had to oblige, so even the translation was strictly to MMY's specification even though Katz did all the original translating.
L ---In [email protected], <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : I am quite sure it is Maharishi's voice, his thoughts, and his truths, though he had someone else expand, and assemble his ideas, for him. All big business is the same. ;-) ---In [email protected], <noozguru@...> wrote : Except, as we've heard here many a time, it really wasn't his commentary. He just approved but gave no credit to the scholar who wrote it. So it goes in the big business of cults. On 09/17/2014 03:19 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I wasn't there, with Shiva, or Parvati, during that discussion, and I just wouldn't take an interpretation, on face value, from a third party. I liked MMY's commentary - but I admit not having read any appreciable amount of it, in years. Perhaps I will pick it up again. PS Anyone can write a commentary. Whether or not people consider it authoritative, is a personal matter, and not given to supposed edicts, from you, or anyone else. ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <[email protected]> mailto:[email protected] wrote : Who is limiting their horizon, here? For decades I thought Mahesh Yogi's commentary was the be all and end all of Bhagavad Gita commentaries. Why? Because the movement said so. Ignorance is Bliss. Lord Shiva's discourse to Goddess Parvati..."Sri Guru Gita" explains who is qualified and who is not. It is clear from this scripture where Mahesh Yogi stood.
