--- In [email protected], "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "geezerfreak" <geezerfreak@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "geezerfreak" <geezerfreak@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "geezerfreak" > <geezerfreak@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" > > > > > > > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, in the case of MMY's secretaries, you think they > would > > > > > > > > > talk to the guy who "procurred" them for him? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only secretary I've seen posting on the internet is Tom > > > Anderson > > > > > > > > on Usenet, and although Tom had lots to say about the > > > > > > > > comings-and-goings of the Maharishi, including what appears > > > on his > > > > > > > > passport, Tom never said anything about any sexual > > > encounters. After > > > > > > > > dialoging with Tom for close to two years, he never even > > > > > > > > attempted to suggest that. Tom should know - apparently > he was > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > same room with the Maharishi for about a year in Spain > TTC and > > > > > > > > Switzerland TTC. And I'm sure that if Tom knew anything > about > > > > > this he > > > > > > > > would have reported it, seeing as how he wasn't exactly > a Mahesh > > > > > > > admirer! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to what I've read, the Maharishi wasn't even > in Spain > > > > > > > > for most of the Majorrca TTC and when he was there, he > was in a > > > > > > > > different hotel most of the time. Go figure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there's nothing like the cross - and nobody posting here > > > has had > > > > > > > > the occasion to cross-examine the Maharishi to get his side > > > of the > > > > > > > > story, and that's a fact. Until someone does that, the > issue is > > > > > moot, > > > > > > > > and therefore cannot be established. It's just gossip, > pure and > > > > > simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cross-examine MMY to get his side of the story." That's just > > > > > > > hilarious. I'll get right on that. "Hello Tony? It's Geez. > > > Say, mind > > > > > > > if I jet over and ask M a few questions about the chicks > ne nailed > > > > > > > back in the day?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ones he nailed back when he wsa 50ish? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ceibate for 40 years before and for 40 years after, as far > as I can > > > > > tell. > > > > > > > > > > > Good for you Sparaig. If you need to believe that to feel good > then > > > > > believe it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, OK. So you're saying that MMY was sexually active when? When > > > he was a kid? When > > > > he was in college? He forsook pre-marital sex so he could go stay in > > > a monastary for 13 > > > > years with Gurudev? During the 2-3 years after Gurudev died when he > > > holed up in a hut in > > > > Rishikesh? Perhaps he was hitting up young women during his stay at > > > the Olsons > > > > 59-61ish? > > > > > > > > And then, according to Chopra and others, MMY had a major physical > > > breakdown about > > > > 15-20 years ago, so are you saying that he was sexually active after > > > that, after age 70? > > > > > > > > > > > > Just what time-frame are we talking about? > > > > > > > We are talking about the 60's and the 70's...up to about 1975. I have > > > no knoweldge of any sexual activity with women after that. There might > > > have been but I certainly know nothing of it. > > > > > > And if he's capable of having sex now? Well more power to him! > > > > > > > Welll... 50ish, meaning around 50, combined with 40 year celibacy > before plus 40 after, > > works out to 1957 to 1967. You want to say he was sexually active > in the 60's and 70's, > > 47 years ago, in his 40's and 50's so that means he was celibate for > 40 something years > > before and 30 something after.... > > > > yeah, how could I have been so careless in my guesstimation of the > timeframe... > > > Beats the hell out of me. Was he celibate for 40 years before? I don't > know that, do you? Whatever...the time frame where there is cross > confirmation from people who were with MMY of sexual activity with > female disciples is from about 1967 to 1975 or '76. > > As Rick said, the need to cling to what you want to beleive is > understandable. I did it myself for many years. It took a LOT of cross > confirmation for me to come to the conclusions that I did. > > I'm going to go play golf now. Cheers. >
So y ou had to work hard at believing what you do now...
