On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: <snip> > > Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? > > Yes! Be interesting to hear a definition of "yogi" from both of you.
"CC" type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic turiyatita--"beyond the forth" being what I'd refer to in a TM-style context.
But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to specify what "style" of yogi you mean when you make some sort of declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify if people are sensitive enough to even ask.
Most aren't.
