On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:52 AM, do.rflex wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:06 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > Scientology? ...or what? What qualifies you to determine and/or to > > be a final arbiter of the validity of the saints, especially ones > > you've never met or 'experienced'? > > > No interest in scientology or being a "final arbiter". I've trained > and practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist mantrayana lines, including > practices for death and dying. So how does that qualify you to give any legitimate definition to Maharishi, Brahmachari Satyanand or Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, or for that matter, Transcendental Meditation? You have ZERO direct experience with any of those persons or the TM. What do you have more than second hand information in that regard?
Not sure what you mean by this "legitimate definition" of Mahesh, etc. is that I'm supposed to be giving or have given. I'm a trained yogi and therefore I can and do express my opinion from that POV and the direct first-hand experience of many different forms of meditation, not just TM.
