--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
Yup. Please refer to my hint about looking up the meaning of "think." > Or this one, the entirety of Message #108099 > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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. Yes indeedy. Especially when one's compulsion to put down a TMer becomes more important than adhering to the facts. > I'll try to be more careful in the future. I seriously doubt you will.
