--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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."
My mistake. I must have read something into this statement from Message #124312 (the one I was replying to): > > 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. Or this one, the entirety of Message #108099 --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" > <markmeredith@> wrote: > <snip> > > Then Chopra is thrown out of the movement due to inner circle > > jealously and hassles, esp with Bevan and suddenly he starts to > > get > > demonized by the TMO - this began long before he started his own > > stuff. I don't care for Chopra's marketing since he went on his > > own, but to say he owes everything to MMY is the height of TB > > blindness. > > Chopra himself said this, including for a time after > he left the movement, until the TMO asked him not to > attribute anything he taught to MMY. > > I think there is a case to be made that Chopra's mind- > body theories and approach to Ayur-Veda were very > firmly grounded in MMY's teaching, in particular about > the value of pure consciousness in mind-body medicine. > > FWIW, I'm not a fan of Chopra either. He had begun to > go off the rails of MMY's teaching into a species of > moodmaking well before he left the movement. Whether > that had anything to do with his leaving, I'm not sure. > > But it's my distinct impression that the complaint > that Chopra doesn't give MMY credit for what he > teaches is unfair, given that the TMO apparently > insisted that he stop mentioning MMY as the > inspiration for his own teaching. Just goes to show how one can misread an intent to present something as fact that wasn't there. I'll try to be more careful in the future.
