Mmmmm you seem to be suggesting that since Rick has formed an opinion about MMYs sexuality that I should necessarilly trust his 'judgement', but then you go on to condemn firm believers. Again you attempt to persuade me to your viewpoint by waving Rick's 'credibility', but that is the same argument as saying look, John Lennon wrote 'Sexy Sadie', so it must be true that MMY was up to no good. But why not sift the evidence, read all the other reports of those who were there, not just John Lennon's? Why should anyone take John Lennon's word? What did he know about the matter? Read his words, confused accounts, jumbled, garbled and disjointed. Yeah, love the man, but he didn't know the truth about MMYs sexuality any better than the others on the course.
And so it is with the alleged poisoning of Guru Dev, why on earth should I side with Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand? I never met the man and besides, in the interview with RK he was using anything he could to try and discredit him. It seems their friction goes a long way back, perhaps as far back as 1940. Now, you argue the 'girlfriends' need protection, but why doesn't Swaroopanand ever repeat and press his points again publicly? It appears that actually you and Rick (& others) are 'firm believers', but fortunately Rick is not asking me to trust his judgement, in fact he tells me:- 'You're welcome to take anything I or anything anyone else says with a grain of salt. In fact, you should.' --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unless there is some reason you distrust Rick's judgement--and many > firm believers *may not even believe it if they hear it from one of > the women who was subjected to the spiritual incest*--it's pretty > damning when someone as credible as Rick talks directly, firsthand > and shares the story. This is way beyond rumor, he's talked to the > women. And of course we need to respect their right to heal, process > and move in and not be trapped in endless questions and attacks from > hundreds or thousands of questioners. So it's also important to > protect those who shared this. I think you are mistaking the need to > protect the abused for something unclear or contrived. > > It became clearer to me why this was important with the Swami Rama > sex scandals where he really damaged a lot of women and few would > come out and tell their stories. Those that did were subjected to a > living hell. And that was a much smaller movement. > > On Aug 4, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Paul Mason wrote: > > > Anyone who sets themselves above others gets notched up the measure > > of accountability and MMY is no exception. Sex and drugs stories sell > > well, but in reality there are more serious temptations for a > > spiritual leader and in order to determine whether or not such people > > exploit their positions, it is wise to keep a close eye on their > > behaviour. > > > > I am not at all opposed to people questioning the 'saintliness' of > > MMY, but I am uncomfortable that FFL no longer merely raises about > > his sexuality but presents the rumours as facts. > > > > Legally speaking, being the conduit of a rumour is one thing, but > > presenting it as fact is really quite another. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
