> if you say you saw the tape numerous times, then i acknowledge the > contradiction-- no problem. i am quite careful about what the > Maharishi did or didn't say, and i thought intially you were > reaching a conclusion that supported your bias.
I acknowledge that bias but it is in the context of being a fan of the guy. I had a great time with him. I try to balance my interest in his inconsistencies with my pleasant personal memory of him. Sometimes I succeed! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > as i recall, when the Maharishi saw Guru Dev at his ashram it > was in > > > a slightly different context than this first sighting during a > > > procession, that of joining Guru Dev's organization, and > confirming > > > by the headlights shining for a moment on Guru Dev's face, that > the > > > Maharishi had indeed found his master. the Maharishi says on > this > > > tape that it took him two years from this first sighting to > devote > > > himself to Guru Dev. > > > > Your memory is not accurate. I saw the tape a mind numbing number > of > > times during Forest Academy and TTC and transcribed it a few > times. > > and he refers to it as his first glimpse. It was not at an ashram > it > > was a private home that Guru Dev was using to give darshon before > > going back to the woods. Maharishi's uncle brought him. Your > memory > > of the two years is also incorrect. He claims that it took him 2 > > years to attune his mind to Guru Dev's when he was already in the > > ashram answering letters for him. He would read them back to Guru > Dev > > and after 2 years Guru Dev didn't need to make changes. > > > > > > > > you on the other hand are using what you think to be an > > > inconsistency > > > > It is a clear inconsistency and your faulty reporting of what he > > discussed on the tape has not cleared it up. > > > > to validate your unfounded notion that the Maharishi > > > was somehow disreputable. > > > > That is a broader claim. Is that what it would mean to you if this > > was an example of him telling the same story two different ways? > > > > seems that there are a few here on FFL who > > > set themselves conveniently above the Maharshi, eh? > > > > Pointing out a clear inconsistency in the stories doesn't say > anything > > about my relationship to Maharishi on a made up scale of value. > > Noticing his humanness and flaws makes him more interesting to me > than > > believing that he was "nature speaking English" and is now living > in > > heaven guiding the movement. We all decide for ourselves how we > want > > to relate to him. > > > > It is a simple, straight forward contradiction in his reporting of > an > > historical event. There are other non sinister reasons,some of > which > > I spelled out in the post. He might have been confused or found > that > > telling the story in a different way got a better reaction. > People do > > it in memoirs do it all the time. What it means is a completely > > different issue. > > > > What I find interesting is how hard it is for you to acknowledge > that > > it is a contradiction. Why do you think that is? I am interested > in > > how people approach this contradiction. It is a mirror of our > view of > > him, myself included. > > > if you say you saw the tape numerous times, then i acknowledge the > contradiction-- no problem. i am quite careful about what the > Maharishi did or didn't say, and i thought intially you were > reaching a conclusion that supported your bias. >
