On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:34 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since
> Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from
> her direct experience being in that living tradition
Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he
*could* have been:
"He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way
is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded
that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly
could have become an full initiate."
This was quoted in the post to which you were
replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and
decided she had said exactly the opposite?
It depends on how you read it. Keep in mind this is casual speech
which already contains some casual errors.
I read "He most certainly could have become an full initiate." as "He
most certainly could have become an full initiate if he had wanted
to" or "if he was a brahmin." Furthermore, since he wears white, it's
an indication he was not initiated into sannyasi. That's unlikely
(vows of sannyasi) because he was not a brahmin...
Perhaps Swami G could clarify so we'd be certain.
However to corroborate this, the email also said: "It is not normal
for a Guru to entrust the innermost
knowledge to a secretary."
Also, the statement "He may claim to be a part of these traditions
but no way is he initiated into it." seems to support what I'm
seeing. Also the title "Giri" or "Saraswati" is not in his name. In
fact the title he did add, apparently on his own, "yogi", is known to
be fallacious.
