> "The devotee of a Master can even `hate' His Master, but he does as `he> says.'" Knowledge of what is necessary is righteousness the duty of > the> devotee. (p.42)
We have had a few debates here about Maharishis assuming the role of master or not. Does anyone reading this believe that he was just giving some historical background for the tradition or was instructing the questioner that he needed to do exactly what Maharishi says? Is there anyone more bossy in this universe than a self proclaimed "Master?" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From David Verrill's book: > > "By what name should we address > you? We hear some people calling you `Mahar'shi,' and others calling you > `Maharishi' we do not want to be disrespectful." His immediate > response > was, "You can call me anything you want, as long as there is love in > your > heart." > With such acceptance, one feels comfortable, even the older school > devotee who asked, "A devotee of a Master, such as yourself, a devotee > must > `love' his Master very much, being asked to perform so much so much is > required of him as evidence of his devotion?" Maharishi gave His > response, > "The devotee of a Master can even `hate' His Master, but he does as `he > says.'" Knowledge of what is necessary is righteousness the duty of > the > devotee. (p.42) >
