Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Randy, you're probably right. I doubt there is any relationship as well, but thought in light of the new book out, the rumors and what I heard while traveling in India, it was a slightly intriguing idea. From: randyanand ra...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 9:15:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Mike, I can't say 100% certanty that there is no relation. However, I probably would have heard about it as I am very close friends with a number of his direct disciples. Up until the very end of Maharishi's life, my understanding is that Vasudevanand had very little to do with Maharishi. That did change in the last few years when Maharishi asked him to be involved with the Brahmananda trust. But up until then, there was not a lot of connections except maybe some ceremonial ones here and there. Vaj always likes to say that Vasudevanand was a bought Shankararcharya. But there is little eveidence of that either. My sources tell me that, yes, Maharishi gave Vasudevanand some money, but it was very little. And I do know for a fact that one time after Deepak left the movement, the Shankaracharya came to bless one of Deepak's big courses in India. Maharishi asked Vasudevanand not to go, but Vasudevanand went anyway. If he was truly bought, he never would have gone fearing Maharishi's donations would stop --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: Randy, and you know this how? I can't say they are related either, however, I did hear this from the person that claims to have gotten directly from Vasudeva's shishya. As I said earlier, I thought there might be a mis-communication, but this friend swore by it and said in no way was it a misunderstanding. I chose not to believe it, but in the light of what is said here on FFL, I have to realize maybe my friend was right and I have been in denial about it all along. Who knows? I have to take the Beatle's attitude, M wasn't the God I thought he was, he's just a man, maybe a very special man, but a man very good at putting on a show. Still love him though! From: randyanand ra...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 1:44:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand  The current shankaracharya of Jyotir Math is Swami Vasudevanand. He is in no way related to Maharishi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:07 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Wowthat would explain plenty. But who knows. I wonder if he looks lighter than most Indians. There should be a photo of him online. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote:  I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
LOL, was that Majorca, be either a householder or a monk? I heard the same thing, directly from him. Hotel Samoa, fall of '71. From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 8:58:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: When was this? Did he say this to you? I ask because he told me (directly) to be celibate, same as he did many men around me at the time which was 1973. Interestingly, although I heard him advise many other guys to be celibate, he never suggested that to me. Perhaps the reason was because of my obvious reaction when he gave a certain talk. He said, There are only two viable paths in life: the celibate monk and the married householder. Anything else is a waste of life. I laughed out loud, because in the TMO at the time, and its then-new M group (which I obviously was not destined for), I finally knew which group I belonged in -- I was in the Waste Of Life group. :-) In retrospect, *by his own standards*, it looks as if he was a member of the Waste Of Life group, too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
He never said all these things directly to me. M did say the world always needs more monks, Majorca '71, however, he soured on giving formal vows at one point saying westerners didn't take it seriously enough. Seems some were floating back and forth between householder and Monkeying around. I do remember him saying not to take vows too quickly, although that may have been sannyasin vows, which he never gave. I don't doubt he told a lot of people to be celibate and probably for different reasons. I have a feeling that may have been a *standard* instruction, if asked, for gay people. A friend told me he heard M say if they don't stop doing what they are doing, even I won't be able to help them. That was a pre-HIV time. From: Joe geezerfr...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 8:05:47 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand When was this? Did he say this to you? I ask because he told me (directly) to be celibate, same as he did many men around me at the time which was 1973. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: I heard Devindra died many years ago of complications from diabetes and Satyanand died as well, more recently. Perhaps Satyanand had accomplished some sense of *enlightenment*, M had been referring to him as Shri Satyanand. As for the Brahmacharya vows, At one point M discouraged it saying, better to take the vows when really ready as opposed to too soon because it was very serious to brake those vows. He also used to say he spoke from a level of experience, which leads me to question if M ever really took formal Brahmacharya vows or chose not to in light of his own *alleged* experiences. From: Joe geezerfr...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 5:44:41 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Divindra and Sattyanand  All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand. I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story? And how about Bramachary Sattyanand?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make! From: WillyTex willy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 10:54:03 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Joe: I recall reading a sad story about Divindra... The last I heard, Davindra got kicked out of the TMO by the Maharishi for having sexual relations with Judith and Jennifer, after the Yogi ran his sweaty hands all over them under their saris. What in the hell was going on inside that guy Davindra's head - going around with a scraggly beard, long hair, dressed in a white bed sheet, screwing all the women on TTC, and aping the Maharishi like that? Why pay all that money and spend all that time in a hot, steamy, fly-infested, daub-and-wattle hut, out in the Indian jungle, just to get some 'Kama Sutra' action? And, what did the Maharishi think he was doing, promising all those young girls that they would get 'enlightened in 5-7 years', when all they really wanted to do was have a quick tumble on a straw mat and an antelope skin? It just doesn't make any sense, Joe! All this going on right under your own nose - where were you, in bed too? Read more: Subject: Re: Brahmachari Devendra From: ColdBluICE Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: October 20, 2001 http://tinyurl.com/37mr4bo PRANAMS AND PROSTRATIONS... walla-, OH *Shamless Withholder of Valuable Information* Please preach to us and advise why-, 'YOU withhold your Personal Worship of Hindu Gods?'
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Dixon Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:04 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand He never said all these things directly to me. M did say the world always needs more monks, Majorca '71, however, he soured on giving formal vows at one point saying westerners didn't take it seriously enough. He did give formal vows to some. Ironic.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: LOL, was that Majorca, be either a householder or a monk? I heard the same thing, directly from him. Hotel Samoa, fall of '71. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/profilepages/ maharishi1.shtml
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:50 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/profilepages/maharishi1.shtml Interesting. He says I did renounce the world because I wanted to live a spiritual life.. But then I found that spiritual life is not dependent on renouncing the world.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:07 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Wowthat would explain plenty. But who knows. I wonder if he looks lighter than most Indians. There should be a photo of him online. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote:  I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Interesting. He says “I did renounce the world because I wanted to live a spiritual life…. But then I found that spiritual life is not dependent on renouncing the world.” IIRC that's a theme in either his Gita 1-6 comment or the appendices. 'All you need is TM 2 x 20 and that transcendent being integrated into activity is all the renunciation one needs.' Just buy TM and use it, you don't need to leave the world. To me that was basic TM dogma and a major selling point.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make! Think about it Mike: there's a huge caste problem with that theory. Indians are extremely caste-conscious. The second you utter your surname, you're pegged. The Shankaracharya Order is extremely Brahmin-centric. No other castes need apply. No other castes would be teaching in that tradition, let alone standing as one of it's line- holders.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Dixon Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:04 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand He never said all these things directly to me. M did say the world always needs more monks, Majorca '71, however, he soured on giving formal vows at one point saying westerners didn't take it seriously enough. He did give formal vows to some. Ironic. Then we have the Indian astrologer who visiting the US commented on what BAD marriage karma in many of the charts of westerners. Some even recommended having flings or live ins but marriage wasn't going to work. Some folks even extrapolated that this was due to Indian monks incarnating here.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Yes, he did give formal vows, in the beginning,maybe even up till the early 70's, but I was told later he stopped it, or may have been much more selective to whom he gave them. From: Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 10:34:26 AM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand From:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLi f...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Mike Dixon Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:04 PM To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand He never said all these things directly to me. M did say the world always needs more monks, Majorca '71, however, he soured on giving formal vows at one point saying westerners didn't take it seriously enough. He did give formal vows to some. Ironic.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
I did think about it... often and that was my justification for not believing it for so long. But, M was never married and that doesn't mean he couldn't have been sowing some *vedic oates* as he did with *out caste*schicksa women, allegedly, on courses. Not sure if there is a vedic injunction about Shankaracharyas being *legitimate*, birth-wise. At the time of his birth, M would have had enough money to take care of the mother and her child for life, along with his Guru who replaced Shantinanda. If the child took his mother's last name, would he not be considered a Brahmin?M has never had a problem taking care of his own, be it family or Shankaracharyas. From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 11:59:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make! Think about it Mike: there's a huge caste problem with that theory. Indians are extremely caste-conscious. The second you utter your surname, you're pegged. The Shankaracharya Order is extremely Brahmin-centric. No other castes need apply. No other castes would be teaching in that tradition, let alone standing as one of it's line-holders.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Now that's funny! The same friend that I went to India with told me back in the 80's that some of the M jyotishis that came to his center wanted him to take them out to a titty bar! As I recall, I think he did! From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:02:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Dixon Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:04 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand He never said all these things directly to me. M did say the world always needs more monks, Majorca '71, however, he soured on giving formal vows at one point saying westerners didn't take it seriously enough. He did give formal vows to some. Ironic. Then we have the Indian astrologer who visiting the US commented on what BAD marriage karma in many of the charts of westerners. Some even recommended having flings or live ins but marriage wasn't going to work. Some folks even extrapolated that this was due to Indian monks incarnating here.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
There's this yogi thing I've read and heard about a number of times that even if the yogi is celibate a poor woman can approach them to father a child. Apparently part of that covenant is the woman can say nothing but in return she gets a bright child who she hopes will be able to take care of her later in life. Mike Dixon wrote: I did think about it... often and that was my justification for not believing it for so long. But, M was never married and that doesn't mean he couldn't have been sowing some *vedic oates* as he did with *out caste*schicksa women, allegedly, on courses. Not sure if there is a vedic injunction about Shankaracharyas being *legitimate*, birth-wise. At the time of his birth, M would have had enough money to take care of the mother and her child for life, along with his Guru who replaced Shantinanda. If the child took his mother's last name, would he not be considered a Brahmin?M has never had a problem taking care of his own, be it family or Shankaracharyas. From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 11:59:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make! Think about it Mike: there's a huge caste problem with that theory. Indians are extremely caste-conscious. The second you utter your surname, you're pegged. The Shankaracharya Order is extremely Brahmin-centric. No other castes need apply. No other castes would be teaching in that tradition, let alone standing as one of it's line-holders.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Wasn't Shukadeva conceived in a boat out of wedlock? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:50:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand There's this yogi thing I've read and heard about a number of times that even if the yogi is celibate a poor woman can approach them to father a child. Apparently part of that covenant is the woman can say nothing but in return she gets a bright child who she hopes will be able to take care of her later in life. Mike Dixon wrote: I did think about it... often and that was my justification for not believing it for so long. But, M was never married and that doesn't mean he couldn't have been sowing some *vedic oates* as he did with *out caste*schicksa women, allegedly, on courses. Not sure if there is a vedic injunction about Shankaracharyas being *legitimate*, birth-wise. At the time of his birth, M would have had enough money to take care of the mother and her child for life, along with his Guru who replaced Shantinanda. If the child took his mother's last name, would he not be considered a Brahmin?M has never had a problem taking care of his own, be it family or Shankaracharyas. From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 11:59:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make! Think about it Mike: there's a huge caste problem with that theory. Indians are extremely caste-conscious. The second you utter your surname, you're pegged. The Shankaracharya Order is extremely Brahmin-centric. No other castes need apply. No other castes would be teaching in that tradition, let alone standing as one of it's line-holders.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:41 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Just because Rick Archer believes whatever he reads in a book doesn't mean it's true. He probably believes everything he reads in the newspapers also. How ironic. Let's both read the book Nabby, then we can discuss it more intelligently. You're in Sweden, right? Should be cheap for you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Randy, and you know this how? I can't say they are related either, however, I did hear this from the person that claims to have gotten directly from Vasudeva's shishya. As I said earlier, I thought there might be a mis-communication, but this friend swore by it and said in no way was it a misunderstanding. I chose not to believe it, but in the light of what is said here on FFL, I have to realize maybe my friend was right and I have been in denial about it all along. Who knows? I have to take the Beatle's attitude, M wasn't the God I thought he was, he's just a man, maybe a very special man, but a man very good at putting on a show. Still love him though! From: randyanand ra...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 1:44:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand The current shankaracharya of Jyotir Math is Swami Vasudevanand. He is in no way related to Maharishi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:07 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand Wowthat would explain plenty. But who knows. I wonder if he looks lighter than most Indians. There should be a photo of him online. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote:  I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I was with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off as a missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder if it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap Opera that would make!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
On Jul 13, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: I did think about it... often and that was my justification for not believing it for so long. But, M was never married and that doesn't mean he couldn't have been sowing some *vedic oates* as he did with *out caste*schicksa women, allegedly, on courses. Not sure if there is a vedic injunction about Shankaracharyas being *legitimate*, birth-wise. At the time of his birth, M would have had enough money to take care of the mother and her child for life, along with his Guru who replaced Shantinanda. If the child took his mother's last name, would he not be considered a Brahmin?M has never had a problem taking care of his own, be it family or Shankaracharyas. It's definitely a colorful idea, but it seems to me to be a pretty patriarchal system. I always thought the Maharishi bought himself a Shankaracharya was at least somewhat tenable; heck you can't even get a landline in India without paying off someone, monthly. As colorful as the idea sounds I seriously doubt he could have fathered a Shankaracharya and have gotten away with it. Are you sure he didn't mean Mahesh was his spiritual father? Now that would be a little more believable. I think it's also helpful to realize, Mahesh was and is not held in the same high esteem in India that he was in the west. (Before someone states they recently flew to India and know darn well hordes of people fawn over Ole M's personage, yes I know, he has some followers there.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
On Jul 13, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: he's just a man, maybe a very special man, Ah, so you're still having trouble letting it all go! Concentrate more on the maybe and less on the special and you'll be headed in the right direction. Unless, of course, you consider a Hindoo Donald Trump special? ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: Yes, he did give formal vows, in the beginning,maybe even up till the early 70's, but I was told later he stopped it, or may have been much more selective to whom he gave them. And, of course, you realize from the POV of Swami Brahmananda we was never ever authorized to do such a thing, right? It was more a sign of how expanded his ego was at the time than it was his own tradition's acceptance of Mahesh-as-the-Brahmin guru. Really, in terms of his own tradition, what he was doing was heretical. Perhaps that appeals to your countercultural liberal side I guess...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
On Jul 13, 2010, at 6:56 PM, emptybill wrote: True for some but not all. Among the dashanami the giri line accepts non-brahmana. Who's a good example of a Shankaracharya who was non-Brahmin E.? Anyone recent or historical that you could share?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Actually I've lost interest in it. It's kind of fun to stay in touch with others who knew the trip though. I really could care less what anyone thinks of M or TM, that's' their business. However, I did enjoy it in my youth. Had wonderful experiences, went to lots of courses, made lots of friends, was determined to get enlightened,come hell or high water, knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, M was Next best thing to God on Earth... then I grew up. It was a wonderful trip. Whether all that has any baring on my future existence, or not, is yet to be seen. I'm just enjoying my retirement, taking it as it comes. From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 3:36:47 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: Yes, he did give formal vows, in the beginning,maybe even up till the early 70's, but I was told later he stopped it, or may have been much more selective to whom he gave them. And, of course, you realize from the POV of Swami Brahmananda we was never ever authorized to do such a thing, right? It was more a sign of how expanded his ego was at the time than it was his own tradition's acceptance of Mahesh-as-the- Brahmin guru. Really, in terms of his own tradition, what he was doing was heretical. Perhaps that appeals to your countercultural liberal side I guess...
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 8:00 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand. I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story? And how about Bramachary Sattyanand? Here's the same thread, started by you 4 years ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111844 Here's my comment on Devendra from that thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111891
