--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > (BTW, I disagree with Lawson that there's a parallel > > > > between Chopra's rewrites and the TMO's rewriting > > > > the WaPo article; and I also think--as I've said > > > > here before--that Chopra rewrote his books to remove > > > > references to MMY and TM at the request of the TMO, > > > > not because he didn't want to give MMY credit for > > > > being Chopra's inspiration.) > > > > > > Why remover the dedication to MMY in the front of the books, then? > > > > Because the TMO didn't want him to associate > > himself with MMY in any way once he had broken > > with the movement. They didn't want him to be > > able to trade on his previous association with > > MMY to promote himself. He probably would > > have, too, at least until he got himself well > > established and no longer needed to. > > Could you provide us with a verifiable source > for this information? Thanks. > > The reason I ask is that I had this nagging > memory that when you introduced this theory > years ago on a.m.t., you were clear at the > time that this was your "suspicion" of what > happened. I can't help but notice that in a > few posts lately you've been presenting it as > if it were established fact. > > Here is what you wrote in 1998: > > > As I noted in a previous post, I strongly suspect > > Chopra has been *asked* by the movement not to > > credit Maharishi with any of what he now teaches > > because Chopra has so thoroughly "bastardized" > > what he learned from Maharishi to start with. > > So I'd like to know what has changed between 1998 > and now to convince you that what was merely a > "strong suspicion" in 1998 is in 2006 a fact. > Documentation, please.
LOL! Check with Mr. Dictionary if you're unfamiliar with the term "think."
