On Feb 1, 2009, at 2:22 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
I gave my examples and you pointed out that I can't prove some of them are lies because we can't prove Maharishi's intent. That doesn't prove that many of my examples are not lies, just that I can't prove it here to your satisfaction because his intent is impossible to prove. We all make our choices about Maharishi's credibility.
However, wouldn't it be fair to to say, after a certain point, if someone's statements and promises consistently turn out to be false (esp. in their favor), that they are lying. Up to a certain point, one could argue about circumstances and it might be a 'glass half full or glass half empty' situation. Those who found him credible would believe he'd just changed his mind, those to whom he, through experience and example after example, had lost most or all credibility, would see the glass as 'half empty' and guess from that experience that he was in fact a consistent liar.
Furthermore, the common claim by initiators that he told people to lie, or taught them how to do so would also make it easy to understand that he was not only someone who did lie, but he was comfortable enough with it as to tell others to do so! That would be the clincher for me: if someone was enabling others to lie, they'd lose credibility to the point where you'd assume they themselves were liars in a rather comfortable sort of way. Having talked at length to old secretaries of M., this seems to be the pervasive style of behavior that really creeped them out.
