--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > From Deepak: > > A word to my rebutter: I feel that the probity of my account > speaks for itself.
Boy, I don't know what this could possibly mean. How can it "speak for itself" if the facts it states are in dispute? Why didn't he use the word "truth" or "accuracy"? I looked up "probity" in my dictionary: : adherence to the highest principles and ideals : UPRIGHTNESS synonyms see HONESTY Maybe he chose "probity" for a reason. I have not embellished any details of my past with Maharishi. > Once he regained consciousness after his health crisis in > London, he controlled whatever version of events he wanted > the world and the TM movement to hear. For the past seventeen > years the main version was outright denial. > > The person who has tried to refute my account at Huffington > was marginally present on the scene, but even that was > intermittent. He wasn't privy to the critical events I recount. > Perhaps he wants to imagine a nicer reality for the sake of the > departed. This is peculiar as well. How was Dr. Mahapatra's account a "nicer reality for the sake of the departed"?? For sure, Chopra's account, real or imagined, is "a nicer reality" than Dr. Mahapatra's, but "for the sake of" Chopra. It's also of interest that what Dr. Mahapatra asserted in his letter, and his account as reported by anonymousff on FFL in 2005, are fully consistent. In 2005, he was not attempting to rebut Chopra; and that account is highly critical of MMY. We do know for a fact that 1991 cannot be the correct date for MMY's illness if, as Chopra claims, it coincided with the publication of "Perfect Health." We also know Chopra himself, in public accounts, has given a wide range of dates for MMY's illness, from "late '80s" to 1991 to 1996, and that only "late '80s" is not contradicted by facts on the record. Dr. Mahapatra gave the date of 1987 in anonymousff's report of his meeting with him. We also know for a fact that Chopra's claim that MMY was out of touch with the movement for an entire year cannot be true, if, as at_man_and_brahman has asserted, he was always present for both the Guru Purnima and January 12 celebrations. So while Chopra's account may "speak for itself" in terms of some higher "probity" not dependent on factual accuracy, the truth of its details remains to be confirmed against a set of competing details (some of them supplied by Chopra himself in other accounts).
