--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 1:04 PM, richardnelson108 wrote: > > > To clarify, I met with the Supreme Court of Allahabad retired > > judge who handled Guru Dev's will (not a lawyer). And yes, he > > was alive and kicking and quite brilliant. And, oh yes, he > > remembered all the details quite clearly. This was in 1995. > > The point I was trying to make, and I will repeat myself, is > > that both he and members of the Shankaracaharya ashram had > > never heard of any poisoning. > > And the members of the ashram~~if they even > exist~~were objective observers and would > have been completely forthcoming if they > *had* known of some shenanigans? Come > on~~better to sweep anything still out under > the carpet rather than open themselves > up for questioning. > > > This is not opinion, this is fact. > > It's also India, where people will say > anything rather than deal with > unpleasantness.
Or deal with the idea that a "guru" was corrupt or that his behavior could require censure. For years it's been impossible for complainants to pursue any legal action against the pervert Sathya Sai Baba because the leader of India was a devotee and intervened to quash any such attempts. > Sounds like > you feel for it hook, line and > stinker. And now you feel > people should accord your words > magic powers and not question > anything you say, because you supposedly > spoke to a judge, THE judge in > this case. Even if true, your opinion > is still worth no more than anyone > else's. Get over your self. Case in point, re Richard's supposed "source." I knew both of Frederic Lenz's - Rama's lawyers pretty well. We called them "the Normans," because they both had the same first name. After the guy croaked himself, I had occasion to listen to both of them talk about him. Both said things that were absolute falsehoods, and could have been proven to be in court. I knew this because they referenced incidents that I had been involved in, and legal papers that *they had written*. Both KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they were saying about him in this talk were not true; they had written the legal documents -- still on file -- that disproved what they were saying. But they said it anyway. Why? Because they had that "devotee mindset" going for them. They had been wrapped by his charisma while he was alive, and they were still wrapped by it after he killed himself. For example, speaking to a group of his former students, neither could bring themselves to actually refer to his death as a suicide. They -- lawyers who had never studied with him -- called it the same thing the True Believers they were speaking to called it, his "Mahasamadhi." So do I believe Richard Nelson? I'm willing to believe he might have met such a person. Do I believe what this alleged person said is fact? Yeah, right.
