---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:42 PM, netineti108 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: So what you insinuate here is that chapters 7-18 are insignificant and not worthy of his time. > What I am insinuating is that if you don't understand Chapter II verse 45 of BG, and you don't know TM, and you have not read the MMY's CBG, is that Chapter 7-18 are insignificant and not worth my time discussing it with you. > Dear Fellow, After three + decades of the TMO, I knew it too well. I derived great benefit from his CBG in my earlier years. But it was incomplete and my statement that he was not qualified to comment on the remaining chapters is evident as Mahesh Yogi was not educated in the tradition and his actions showed it. If he was a maharishi, why did he have others by his side to interpret Sanskrit/Veda? Who was that sweet old Brahmarishi by his side at the Hague in 1985? Also in Humboldt 1972, there was a Brahmarishi with his son interpreting for Mahesh Yogi. He was no maharishi. Again the western culture's ignorance just blindly accepted this. Neti man, There is the complete Commentary which you have not seen, so are not in a position to opine. Please don't offer opinions on things that you have no knowledge or experience with. Thanks. Also, Maharishi's mission was to bring the Vedic Knowledge to the West when he was at Humboldt and The Hague. That is why he introduced Brahmarshis, and later with Ayurveda, he introduced leading Vaidyas. Please do not call Western culture ignorant. That's not nice. What is written above is just intellectuallizing and is not a path with knowledge to navigate. > It's sounds pretty clear to me - go beyond or transcend the three gunas born of nature. "Oh Arjuna, the Vedic scriptures deal with subjects in the three modes of the material nature. Become self-realized, transcendent to the three modes in pure consciousness, free from duality and free from conceptions of acquisition and preservation." http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-44.html http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-44.html > It is nothing new. Maybe to the Western mind, but not to those who are brought up in the Vedic tradition. > Which Mahesh Yogi was not. He was a clerk. > He was a yogi clerk - that's how he wrote his commentary. > He said, "I am not a personal guru" yet so many ignorant souls did not know what Guru is. > You are mistaken - he did not say this anywhere in CBG. Speak for yourself. > I never claimed he said it in CBG. But he did say it. I heard him say it. MMY on the Bhagavad Gita: CBG: II., v. 45, p. 126 VI., v. 1, p. 384 >
