--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > [...] > > > (BTW, I disagree with Lawson that there's a parallel > > > between Chopra's rewrites and the TMO's rewriting > > > the WaPo article; and I also think--as I've said > > > here before--that Chopra rewrote his books to remove > > > references to MMY and TM at the request of the TMO, > > > not because he didn't want to give MMY credit for > > > being Chopra's inspiration.) > > > > Why remover the dedication to MMY in the front of the books, then? > > Because the TMO didn't want him to associate > himself with MMY in any way once he had broken > with the movement. They didn't want him to be > able to trade on his previous association with > MMY to promote himself. He probably would > have, too, at least until he got himself well > established and no longer needed to.
Could you provide us with a verifiable source for this information? Thanks. The reason I ask is that I had this nagging memory that when you introduced this theory years ago on a.m.t., you were clear at the time that this was your "suspicion" of what happened. I can't help but notice that in a few posts lately you've been presenting it as if it were established fact. Here is what you wrote in 1998: > As I noted in a previous post, I strongly suspect > Chopra has been *asked* by the movement not to > credit Maharishi with any of what he now teaches > because Chopra has so thoroughly "bastardized" > what he learned from Maharishi to start with. So I'd like to know what has changed between 1998 and now to convince you that what was merely a "strong suspicion" in 1998 is in 2006 a fact. Documentation, please.
