Right, this whole notion that he somehow didn't say this is utterly ridiculous!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of authfriend > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:00 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > [I wrote:] > > > I could certainly be wrong, but I'm guessing he was very > > > careful as to what he said about his sexual status, > > > allowing folks to *assume* things that weren't the case > > > without telling outright falsehoods. > > > > Not true. At Poland Spring (July 1970), in the midst of > > MMY's "sexual phase" a guy named Michelangelo Salcedo got > > up to the mic and told MMY he was interested in the sexual > > revolution. MMY cut him short, saying that he was a monk, > > it wasn't his field, and he didn't know anything about it. > > That's not very convincing as an example of an outright > falsehood, Rick. > > That MMY was having his own private sexual revolution > didn't mean he knew anything about the sexual revolution > in society that Salcedo was interested in. > > (Do you think Salcedo had heard rumors of MMY's sexual > activities and was slyly hinting about them to see what > MMY would say?) > > No. I think he was just interested in sex and he wanted MMY to talk about > it. But on the subject of MMY's sexuality, there's no doubt, if you were > around him any amount of time, that he identified himself as a celibate monk > and never indicated otherwise, and that he encouraged others to adopt that > lifestyle (Purusha and Mother Divine, and their precursors). >
