--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:52 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> 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.
Vaj, I think that John has bought into the propaganda spread by Nabby and others that you have never practiced TM or been a TM teacher. His phrasing above seems to imply that. If I'm not mistaken, neither is true. Like many of us here, you both learned TM and spent some time on the "front lines" as a TM teacher before moving on to other studies, including some that involved working with teachers in the *real* Shankaracharya lineage.
