Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Email I just sent to an old friend who's trying to get me in the dome.

[Vaj]

On Aug 4, 2006, at 8:30 PM, Paul Mason wrote: Mmmmm you seem to be suggesting that since Rick has formed an opinion  about MMYs sexuality that I should necessarilly trust  his 'judgement', but then you go on to condemn firm believers. Well no, I think you should question everything and practice responsible, individual anarchy. I don't feel Rick has "formed an opinion" but instead went "ad fuentes", to the source and found out. This was not easy to do. Again  you attempt to persuade me to your viewpoint by waving  Rick's 'credibility', but that is the same argument as saying look,  John Lennon wrote 'Sexy Sadie', so it must be true that MMY was up to  no good. Well, honestly, I'd have to say JL has little credibility although, if correct, an interestingly accurate intuition of the situation. It's my understanding that after the course was his and Yoko's debacle with heroin. In other words, the relaxation and unstressing of Rishikesh put John in a frame of mind where he could not process his unresolved past. So he tried to numb it on heroin. With the love of his life. Given his past, this is not hard to see. What's sad is that there was no framework for processing then in the TMO (or now!). He was able to suppress it through the life of a Beatlemaniac. But really this has no bearing on Rick's first hand comments. But why not sift the evidence, read all the other reports of  those who were there, not just John Lennon's? Why should anyone take  John Lennon's word? What did he know about the matter? Read his  words, confused accounts, jumbled, garbled and disjointed. Yeah, love  the man, but he didn't know the truth about MMYs sexuality any better  than the others on the course. See the above. And so it is with the alleged poisoning of Guru Dev, why on earth  should I side with Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand? I never met the  man and besides, in the interview with RK he was using anything he  could to try and discredit him. It seems their friction goes a long  way back, perhaps as far back as 1940. Honestly? I think it remains an unresolved question, but it's important to pose the question. We'll most likely never know. We just know that something looks suspicious. And who was there and what they did. Now, you argue the 'girlfriends' need protection, but why doesn't  Swaroopanand ever repeat and press his points again publicly? The "girlfriend" really have nothing to do with Swarupanand. It appears that actually you and Rick (& others) are 'firm  believers', but fortunately Rick is not asking me to trust his  judgement, in fact he tells me:- 'You're welcome to take anything I  or anything anyone else says with a grain of salt. In fact, you  should.' And as a recorder of a biogrpahy you definitely should. But you should at least point out the questions that are raised--even if that means you have to leave the questions unanswered. The truth is, we may never really know. It's also possible that those who know are, relatively speaking, the poorest of the poor living in India. They fear the slightest problem and so remain quiet. Never forget, that money, to a poor struggling Indian, is siddhi. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___