--- In [email protected], kaladevi93 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: <snip> > > Alright. So you're saying that Vaj, who can't furnish any > > direct reference to the studies he claims exists, is being > > more clear than moi, who does furnish references to such > studies. > > Actually he has talked about them,
Again you're having problems with reading comprehension. Vaj talks about studies a lot, but he very rarely provides citations so we can see if he's representing them correctly, or if they're actually sound research. > I gather he's sick of constantly repeating himself, even > morso since clearly like many yogis he prefers direct experience > rather than materialistic ephemera. So if that's the case, why does he keep mentioning studies that supposedly "prove" other techniques are superior to TM? > You prefer the way it's been done for less than 50 years, > he prefers the one that's been done experientially for > thousand and thousands of years. One is tried and true > and has produced innumerable enlightned beings, another > is groping in the dark for tentative answers. I should think it would be expected that a technique that's been around for thousands and thousands of years would produce more enlightened beings than one that's only been available for 50 years, wouldn't you agree? > Just posting links of studies of questionable veracity is > of little interest to most yogis. So instead, Vaj makes claims about studies without citing them so others can evaluate their veracity, is that what you're saying?
