--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Vaj wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2006, at 4:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > >> Suffice it to say that the > >> author felt it was considerably hipper to have studied > >> with Rajneesh or Maharaj-Ji than Maharishi. MMY was in > >> the same grouping as Pat Robertson. > > > > > > If you look behind the veneer and the staging and the silk getup, > > it's rather similar: a Hindu fundie and a X-tian fundie, each using > > marketing and media to amass great wealth and each promising > > salvation (each also with a political agenda), one instantly > > (accept jesus, etc., etc.) and the other in 5-7 years. > > > Ooops. Forgot proselytizing. M. is unique in that he uses > "scientific" proselytizing and the circus tent revival thing has > been replaced with a dome. "Peace on earth, good will to men" is > replaced with "coherence" or "super-radiance" which will (according > to their scientific "tracts") eventually lead to world peace. Pat > uses the Bible, esp. the NT (featuring Jesus), Mahesh uses the > Bhagavad-gita in a commercial translation filled with references to > the product and Krishna. >
Well, y'know, when all is said and done, MMY can at least claim that you can ATTEMPT to verify some of his claims objectively. YOU, on the other hand, have backed off and now say "who cares?" That's the standard response from religious people when their beliefs about reality are threatened by scientific investigation. Nothing wrong with being a religious person, but why should someone pay more attention towhat YOU have to say than to what some fundamentalist Christian has to say, regarding religious and spiritual beliefs and practices?
