For God's sake, more power to Maharishi if he was born into a "humbler" caste than we have been lead to believe. It makes what he accomplished all the more noteworthy. If he had to hide his beginnings, I think Rajneesh's alleged comments exactly indicate why: he would have made little headway with caste-obsessed and racist Indians and others. Otherwise, given the general lack of interest he showed in his appearance, "unkempt" hair and all that, it probably did not bother him where he came from, although he did pay some lip service to tradition.
I am surprised that in these politically-correct times that people are not outraged when Maharishi is "accused" or being only of the warrior caste, or of being a "mere" sudra. Also, the subject of Maharishi's origins reminds me again of the old warning of obsessing on the finger pointing at the Moon, rather than on the latter's glories. However, the topic of Maharishi's family origins is interesting from an academic point of view. I have long felt that Guru Dev eventually came to see something special in the youthful Maharishi that was lacking in the pure-bred Brahmins surrounding Guru Dev. I wonder if Maharishi saw anything similar in anyone of those around him, perhaps Tony Nader? Time will tell. GA --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "at_man_and_brahman" > <at_man_and_brahman@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > http://premendra.indiainteracts.com/2008/02/11/maharishi-mahesh-yogi- > > > was-born-in-chhattisgarh-not-jabalpur/ > > > > > > > I don't know who the author is, but he > > or she contradicts Rajneesh, who claimed > > that Maharishi was born in Chichli. > > Well, Rajneesh also claimed that MMY is a sudra. In FF, I'd always > heard MMY refered to as being a Kshatriya, and a quick Google search > on Shrivastava says the family is Kayastha, which is apparently a sort > of Brahmin/Kshatriya hybrid. Frankly, that something contradicts what > Rajneesh said doesn't sound like anything to be concerned about, IMO. >
