On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM, curtisdeltablues < curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I agree that King Tony is intelligent enough in a true believer sort > of way. I just don't believe that the highest state of human > development and Tony should be used in the same sentence. If > enlightened people just show up as ordinary then Maharishi was not > being honest or he didn't know what it would do for someone. > This would be kind of hard to research, it's been so long since I read this. But is it not true that a feature of enlightenment is that it gives you the gift of gab Maharishi had, the ability to pull many things together intellectually and speak out with charisma? Of course to everything there is a season. Guru Dev only spoke for perhaps 10 minutes at a time and it was all that old time (fundy Vedic) religion. Perhaps some people here where there when Maharishi invited a saint to visit (in India). Maharishi translated from Hindi to English and back. The saint spoke very elegantly, explaining that he could not sleep, because who would hold up creation? Unless Paramahansa Yogananda's book was ghosted, he put words together very well and and his book Autobiography of a Yogi, my first book in the area, was a spellbinder IMO. Myself, I always had a hard time with someone who could dissect the brain and find the Veda there. I don't see that as much as a show of brillance as someone who wanted to please the master, a one-up-manship to Keith Wallace and the bogus article he published in Scientific American. BTW, I got to know Keith Wallaces' brother rather well, he told some great stories about himself and Keith going ashram hopping before setting on Maharishi's.
