On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:36 PM, I am the eternal wrote:
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.
Exactly. I look at his work on finding the Veda in the human nervous
system--or whatever he calls it--and it's simply a work of the
intellect and jiving various correspondences together. Very
Theosophical.
His work on mercury rasayanas in nerve regeneration sounded
interesting, but I've been unable to find a copy anywhere. And he
never answered my emails. I guess I must live in the land of mud.
