On Sep 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, PaliGap wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote:
> An interesting detail from Swarupananda is that Mahesh never
> entered into the guru-shishya relationship with Brahmananda.
I am shocked. Truly shocked. What no "guru-shishya"? What
is wrong with these people?
What's wrong is:
1. He holds no authentic teacher relationship from the teacher he
claims a relationship with.
2. He received no permission/instruction to teach what he claims is a
technique that comes from aforementioned relationship (another lie).
3. Claims to be a yogi but there is know known evidence of diksha, etc.
4. Directly violates the beliefs re: "Natural Law", dharma-laws of
his tradition and teacher.
5. Claims to have renounced the world and to be celibate, but is not.
So in other words, in the tradition he claims to come from, by their
own standards, he's a mountebank.
I think really, for all intents and purposes, this movie puts an end
to a lotta of people's misunderstandings, misperceptions and
fantasies (not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)). -and not
that this is anything new to many of us.
