On Apr 11, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Vaj wrote: >>> n my case, it specifically refers to the fact that he was directly >>> responsible for encouraging people to take an ayurvedic approach to life >>> threatening diseases, and then these same people died because of that >>> "enlightened" advice. >> >> Vaj, do you really believe this makes MMY "guilty" of >> something? What, specifically? Giving dumb advice? > > - Giving medical advice without a license, resulting in death.
If people asked him, he wasn't breaking any laws in stating his opinion. Do you need a license now to have opinions? > And then sometimes collecting the money owed from these failed, overpriced > Ayurvedic interventions from the deceased greaving families. What exactly do you mean by "collecting the money owed from these failed, overpriced Ayurvedic interventions from the deceased greaving families"? Did he go around to their houses after the funerals with a cup and a bell or something? You're starting to sound pretty silly, Vaj. > - psychological and neurological damage from over-meditation and unregulated > meditation practice. Over-meditation? What on earth does that mean? And It's all "unregulated." > This has been talked of repeatedly and in considerable detail here before: And I've pointed out how nonsensical I've thought it before. > He was looked at as a wise, all-knowing, "enlightened" figure. Who cares how he was "looked at"? Did these people not have functioning brains? > Little did people know that once the giggling once slipped off the stage, he > was screwing young students and switched into a gruff businessman. It was all > an act. Which has, of course, nothing to do with the discussion. Sal
