The basic premise of having a 'master', a 'teacher' or a 'satguru' is that that person is capable and deserving of actually being labeled such.

If, as YOU claim, (make sure you understand that no one here has said this but you) it was the premies fault for misinterpreting m or it was his 'indian mahatma's' fault for pushing their own version of surrender....then at what point does the actual 'master/teacher' come out and clarify or teach his followers???

I would think that a teacher would care enough about his/her students to make certain.... absolutely certain... that the students were clear on the subject.

m's inability or lack of desire to clarify himself to the very people that are looking to him to teach them... shows the nature of this beast. Ohh and btw... 10-20 years after the fact is not really justifiable.

I can only conclude... and hope one day you do as well, that the master is not worthy of being the master.

If as you say there was ambiguity in what m was preaching... the responsibility lay at m's feet to quickly and clearly clarify the misunderstanding. That is the least one can expect from a teacher. THE LEAST!

However... as we all have seen..m took advantage of the situation, abused the trust that was given and in fact enabled the "misunderstanding" for personal gain. That is another reason to discount m as a teacher/master.

Let's not toy with people here... the sincerity which a person came to m with was in fact genuine! Regardless of whether you continue to say that it was their confusion... m was their teacher. And what did m teach.... ?

He taught us by example how to turn our backs on those that love us. He taught us how to break solemn vows, again by example... i.e. his wedding vows. He taught us that the ends justify the means. He taught us that the larger the financial gift ... the more attention one gets.

So... this is who YOU choose to be your 'master'? Your 'teacher'? Your focus of dedication?