Ron wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a
>> guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a
>> guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it!
>>
>>
>
> Are we about to step into nonsense here because if so it is going to
> be very short lived from this side.
>
> Go ahead and list the basis for claim that Swami G is not a Guru if
> you like, then maybe there will be a response. Keep in mind my comment
> in an earlier post, if it is thought that a post coming from Swami G
> will be of no value, most likely there is not going to be one. I
> haven't seen it happen too often but I have seen it.
>
> You can see Swami G tell of her journey and how it is that she became
> a Guru in one of the 13 youtube videos under the search of Guruswamig
>
> Tanmay
People here tend to judge other gurus from the POV of the rather
conservative Shankaracharya tradition as well as some maya or
"psychological constructs" that MMY created. As Swami G points out in
her videos she learned from a tantric in Rishikesh. I have had the same
experience except I didn't have to go to India to learn, the guru came
here and resides in the Bay Area and is a bonified tantric samrat from a
very long Kali tradition. BTW, is Swami G of the Kali tradition or
Shiva? Like Swami G I also was "commissioned" a Swami but that doesn't
mean I can make other tantrics as I still have to attain the level of
archarya before I'm allowed to do that.
