--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > All MMY claimed about TM mantras was: > > > > > > > > 1) they are not om or some other monk-oriented mantra (if > > > > there are any, in his mind); > > > > > > > > 2) he deemed them to be suitable for householders; > > > > > > Since TM mantras are for householders, are there mantras > > > for gays and lesbians as well? > > > > More to the point, if TM practitioners committed to > > Maharishi's Purusha or Mother Divine programs, and > > thus chose to effectively becomes monks or recluses, > > were they re-initiated using a more "appropriate" > > recluse mantra? > > Actually, even those who got the 'monks technique', they didn't get OM, so > it's a bluff. The so-called 'no-mantra-for-householders' is only a cover-up > for the brahmanical no to any vedic mantra for lower castes, especially > women. >
MMY was pretty low-caste himself, you know. L
