On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:50 PM, blusc0ut wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 4, 2011, at 2:53 PM, sparaig wrote: >> >>> For heaven's sake. How do you know that they are chakkras? >>> >>> How do you discriminate at all if you are in PC? >>> >>> SIghs and shakes head. >> >> >> I believe that's why he's asking if: "You have heard of flat transcendence >> and lively transcendence?" >> > > The problem is really that the term chakra is a no-no in TM dogma. And what's > not in the standard explanation model doesn't exist. Too bad though that at > least one so-called advanced technique asks you to focus on a chakra, but you > have to wait at least 10 years for that - and pay big bucks before. >
Well, it's only normal that we all want to be as evolutionary as possible, no? :-) chakra = relative = non-blisser = baaaad...
