You know, I've seen quite a few of you exe's discuss M's alleged drinking, smoking and fornicating, etc., while you were in the ashrams "slaving" away to support his lifestyle.  Obviously, many of you are now quite angry with him over this issue.

However, I've never seen it addressed here that M was not in an ashram at the time.  He was a "householder" as they say in India.  So he was never a renunciate.  He never had the same rules which applied to ashram residents.  To me, those of you who constantly carp about his smoking and drinking while you had rules to follow which forbade you to do so are being disingenuous.

So I'm just throwing this out there for comments.  You who were in the ashram had a choice to move out and be householders and do all the smoking, drinking, fornicating, etc., that your little hearts desired.  Why all this blame on M when he never chose an ashram lifestyle but remained a householder?  Is it fair to call him hypocritical?