All fine except the person Richard Nelson is referencing was connected to SBS, not Maharishi. So where's the motive to put a positive spin on it especially when according to Vaj, those closest to SBS absolutely despised MMY? But I guess you can arrange facts in any way you want. This person lies (if his account is contrary to your views.) This person is telling the truth (if it jibes with want to want to hear) And the only problem with this, is that Richards provides names, places and times, and Vaj provides anonymous sources.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- 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. >
