--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues
> > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:29 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev
> >
> >
> >
> > In the movement mindset, I always assumed that this claim meant
that
> > Guru Dev was using magic to support the place without cash. Now I
> > think this is unlikely at best. Of course he might have had an
> > inheritance that he could direct to the math so outside money
was not
> > needed.
> >
> > The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that
whenever he
> > needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there.
> Haven't you
> > heard that story?
>
> I had heard this. Probably generated by the very imaginative Dr.
> Varma. I was just trying to make sense out of what Maharishi was
> claiming without resorting to that explanation. I was trying to go
> the route of good will intentions rather than my usual assumption
of
> bamboozlement. In that case there could coexist a separate
material
> source of funds but Maharishi was just letting the individual
devotee
> off the hook for contributions. I would like this version to be
true.
>
no reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed. just as
we are talking about other subjects that can't be proven, this one
can't either. but rather than declare the lack of proof as the
reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed, i'd rather
turn that reasoning on its head, and say that is the reason the
money making box could've existed. there is a 50-50 probability.
