--- In [email protected], taskcentered <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], taskcentered <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], taskcentered <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > Judy, > > You appear to be having an off night.
Translation: John is having trouble coming up with good responses, so he figures he'll try prejudicing readers before they actually examine his fumbles. > Comments interspersed below. > > > > > > I have to say, though that it's hard to think of the > > > > > Maharishi as egoless when he has named everything from > > > > > food supplements to universities after himself. To me > > > > > it seems every aspect of the TM Org is a testament to > > > > > the man's world-class, narcissistic ego. > > > > > > > > A much more likely explanation is that using > > > > his name and picture is a branding strategy. > > > > But that wouldn't reflect quite as badly on > > > > him, so of course you wouldn't mention it. > > > > > > As to branding, he could have followed the practice of other > > > Indian teachers and named everything after his teacher, Guru > > > Dev. > > > > And if he had, he'd have been even more violently > > attacked for associating his teacher with a > > commercial enterprise, when Guru Dev was known for > > not even taking donations. > > Wow. What a strange argument. Maharishi was actually being > selfless Right, by putting himself in a position where he'd be less likely to be attacked. Sure, John. The epitome of selflessness. > by not associating Guru Dev with the crass commercial > enterprise that he launched in his name (in Beacon > Light). Right, well before before it ever became commercial. You should have quit before you got any further behind. > > Plus which--another obvious point that you have > > carefully overlooked--if he puts his name on > > things, he also has to take the responsibility > > if they don't work out. Yet you think he should > > have arranged it so Guru Dev got the blame. > > > > Get real. > > Again, he started using his own name largely AFTER the fad > days of the TM Movement. He had experienced a very large > success. Then he started plastering his name on everything. "Everything," that's le mot juste, including all the stuff he introduced AFTER the fad days of the TM movement, like the TM-Sidhis and Maharishi Ayur-Veda and Jyotish and yagyas. Those were sure to be big popular successes, right, John? > > > Also, I could point out that he began his incessant > > > naming of everything "Maharishi" after the TM fad of the > > > 1970s had largely passed. With the exception of MIU, the > > > brand name he promoted up until that point was Transcendental > > > Meditation itself. If anything he diluted his branding when > > > he switched to naming things after himself. > > > > You conveniently forget that this was also > > around the time when disaffected TM teachers > > were publicizing the mantra lists and telling > > folks there was nothing unique about TM, and > > the imitators really got going. Plus which, > > Benson had come out with his Relaxation Response. > > > > Obviously, MMY didn't *need* branding until then. > > Branding is what you do when you have competitors. > > That's simply not true. He trademarked TM, Transcendental > Meditation, and the TM-Sidhis before the Relaxation Response. > He obviously felt he needed branding then. And would have to spend jillions to defend the trademarks in court to keep the imitators from using the terms (and risking losing the trademark into the bargain because they were iffy to start with). Much more cost-effective to use a branding device that couldn't be imitated so easily. > > > The guy's just not egoless. > > > > Did you imagine that I said he was egoless? > > Actually, I didn't say you did say this. Did you imagine that > I did? Well, yes, John, you did. > Nabulous was making a case that the Maharishi was egoless > before you wandered into the conversation. But you were responding to me. And you went on to say: > > > It appears, rather, that you are making excuses for him. Too bad about that word "rather," ain't it? > > That's a crock, John. That's your threadbare > > mantra when anybody points out that your > > accusations are over the top. > > Weird. I don't remember ever saying you or anybody else > was making excuses for the Maharishi before. Can you provide > an example? Oh, please. You've said it many times. I'm not going to waste my time hunting up examples.
