--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > <snip> > > > > > But S-V (at least as interpreted > > > > > by Maharishi) seems to be a remarkly control-freak > > > > > approach -- trying to make nature "submit" to puny > > > > > humans' idea of what it should be. > > > > > > > > Every resource online says exactly the same thing. In > > > > fact, if you look at the design of the oldest cities > > > > in India, you'll find they are laid out exactly that > > > > way. The ruins were uncovered some years ago. > > > > > > So you're trying to make the point that ancient > > > Indians were just as much control freaks and just > > > as out of touch with nature as Maharishi is? :-) > > > > > I guess... > > Hmmm, I thought the point you were trying to make > was that Barry was incorrect to suggest that MMY's > interpretation of S-V might be faulty. > > Funny how that correction slipped right by Barry... >
I guess the REAL point of SV is that if humans can't make their houses fit into nice neat rows, then probably humans shouldn't be living on that land...
