Of course there's not going to be any evidence of any of this cod-mystical shit. This guy fancies himself as a modern day Galileo among the ignorant masses, remember.

All this talk about intuition.....I seem to have an intuition for detecting bullshit.

The making of a guru : Vikram Ghandi as the guru "Kumare"




Trailer for the movie "Kumare"

TEDtalks: On the road to Kumare, or how to become a DIY guru

apophenia Wrote:The making of a guru......

Gee, you must have wasted some time looking for a false guru.
You could have told me so i would have save your precious time.
I got a lot of false gurus to show you.
Next time let me know ok?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/hypertextopia/pu...nasi-4.jpg

---

(July 3, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Of course there's not going to be any evidence of any of this cod-mystical shit. This guy fancies himself as a modern day Galileo among the ignorant masses, remember.

Thanks for your interesting comment however i should point out that while Galileo was discovering and propose new things Enrico never discover or proposed new things.
Yoga is 7000 years old so eventually Enrico try to compare this science with a system that now is falling apart (religions, atheism, capitalism and so on).
I know how much you are eager to get some more Kudos but at the moment i am reluctant to give you any but i promise that if you are a bit more mindful in proposing the right comparison then i will consider the matter seriously. Ciao

Aw, you don't love me no mo! :.(

Who will I get my precious, precious kudos from now?

(July 5, 2013 at 5:30 am)enrico Wrote: Gee, you must have wasted some time looking for a false guru.
You could have told me so i would have save your precious time.
I got a lot of false gurus to show you.

You're spot on, as usual. It came up as a Netflix recommendation, and so took no time at all. It came looking for me, as a matter of fact. (Perhaps it's a sign from God?)

But by all means, please continue with your unbroken string of 'hits'.

(Oh, and you needn't assure me of your ability to find false gurus. Your discovery of Sarkar is ample evidence of your skill in finding religious frauds.)

apophenia Wrote:Your discovery of Sarkar is ample evidence of your skill in finding religious frauds.

Gee, i didn't know that Sarkar was a fraud but now that i know i will have to reconsider all my life.
All these years wasted in following the wrong guru. How sad.
Well let me briefly summarize Sarkar life.
Not that you need to know as i understand very well that thanks to your INTUITION you already know all about Sarkar. It is that the other people without your deep intuition wouldn't know so it is just for them.
What happen in the 60 and early 70 Sarkar propound the PROUT or economic democracy that would have got rid of the corruption and establish an economic system that would have created prosperity.
The corrupted leadership of Indira Gandhi said to him........you can keep on talk about your yoga as much as you can but forget about Prout.
http://www.prout.org/
Sarkar said no and after short time he was arrested on false charges and he was even poison but he survived and when Indira Gandhi dictatorship was gone then Sarkar was found innocent and free.
Anyway i write all this because i need your precious help in understanding why Sarkar did not compromise like all the fake gurus that would sell their ideals for saving themselves from trouble.
I know that you get all your information from your deep INTUITION and not from Wikipedia and beside knowing that you spend 30 years doing yoga you must be very well able to answer my question without any problem.
Thanks if you can help.

Bolding is mine.

I smell sarcasm...

(July 7, 2013 at 5:43 am)enrico Wrote: I know that you get all your information from your deep INTUITION and not from Wikipedia and beside knowing that you spend 30 years doing yoga you must be very well able to answer my question without any problem.
Thanks if you can help.

Yeah because getting your information from a source that must cite all of its sources, must remain neutral, and must be steadily confirmed by OTHER sources as well [or failing that possibility must display all valid, alternative claims] automatically instigates a negative connotation, right? I mean, wikipedia! Jeez, it's almost like it uses the scientific method mixed with encyclopedic standards!

OH WAIT.

It does. Are you saying that the scientific method is flawed?

Also, how do you know any of this stuff? Where did you read it from? And how positive are you that it isn't biased? If you bring up a source that happens to be written by one of his followers, PROTIP: NOT UNBIASED.

Enrico, do you recall that little conversation we had a while back about the difference between good and bad teachers and the importance of 'rejecting' the bad ones when they're shown to be bad? Yeah, this is sort of what I had in mind.