On Jul 9, 2010, at 11:34 AM, randyanand wrote:
It was in a back and forth posting on Fairifield Life many month ago.
I was making the point that you kept referring to Maharishi as
Mahesh and it was disrespectful because whatever you think of him,
thats his name. You countered with, you would not call him
Maharishi because he was not a real guru and he poisoned his guru.
Like I said, I don't believe he poisoned his guru, he may have in
some way been complicit, I feel it speaks more to his character than
to his actual actions.
Sorry Vaj, first you say he poisoned him to me, then you deny
believing that. You are inconsistant.
Please show me the post you're referring to, and then I can better
respond to your accusations. I'm just telling you what I've believed
for a long time, I really don't care what you chose to think you know
I believe!
Also I have noticed that you only seem to respond to certan posts
here when you can twist them to fit your beliefs. For example,
when I repeated twice in two previous posts that just because
Maharishi had someone else design his yoga course does not mean
that he is or is not a yogi, you made no attempt to respond. When
I said in a previous post that there is no way to verify that he
did or did not recieve some type of "special yogi" training from
Guru Dev, you again did not respond. Because you make statements
that you can not prove. The same with the poisoning of Guru dev.
There has never been any evidence of poisoning.
You've already decided what you want to believe.
Oh and by the way, many months ago we got into a discussion about
the Shankaracharya tradition. You stated it was part of the
Vaishnava tradition. I disagreed and said it was a Shaivite
tradition. We went back and forth on this and I finally realized
who I was dealing with. You are not interested in the facts about
things, only your opinions. Well, for the record, I have since
been to india and visited the Shankaracharya ashram in Allahabad,
the Shankaracharya ashram in Kanchipuram and one of the heads of
the Juna Akhara of Naga Babas. They all confirmed that the
Shankaracharya tradition is not asociated with the Vaishnava
tradition, it is in fact a Shaivite tradition. So here I can
definitely cite my sources and say, sorry dude, you were wrong.
Although knowing you, you'll prpbably come back and say you never
said that, or twist your words so you will not appear wrong.
You are entitiled to your opinions Vaj. Just realize, that like
all of us, you sometime may be wrong.
You sound confused. The Shakaracharya tradition is a Vaishnavite
tradition but it not from the Vaishnavite tradition. I doubt you'll
get what I mean by that. Also be aware many, many sadhus have little
knowledge of their own historical origins or place. But I'm glad you
found the answer you sought. Just because they worship or accept
Shiva would not make them a Shaivite line. It still sounds like
you're confusing the two. Again, I recommend you take a look at the
TM puja which shows the tradition originating from Vishnu-Narayana.