Frankly, it's not very nice for Didier to draw a parallel between him and Mr. Casasnovas. Didier often repeats that he does not want to be a guru.
if you followed the speeches of this Casasnovas, he too affirms not to have to be taken at his word, but to verify by practice and experience the validity or not of his "teaching".
and there you compare him to a power guru
all those who bring a teaching are gurus (in the etymological sense) whether it is pleasant or not because of the sect that is attached to it, by others who teach equally. After they will have more or less impact according to this teaching precisely, but also and especially by the implementation of it (otherwise it is useless!) Hence the parallel with Did in the spirit of the approach, not completely of the subject itself.
now we must not prejudge what has not yet been expressed, so wait for his speech to be fully developed. and his usual opponents (those who do not practice) will be happy to criticize this one.
NB: remember Ahmed's signature: "
Do not believe what I say to you"in clear, check the content!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré