--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Does not the whole vedic literature suggests strongly a belief > in siddhis, do not the whole Puranas recount them and all of the > Yogic and tantric literature is full of references to supernormal > powers, so anybody basing his/her teachings on such scriptures sits in > the same boat," > > The Yoga specific texts which were created much later than the other > Vedic texts. I don't believe that the Puranas are meant to be read as > literal facts and history of actual beings. In my view it is the > misguided attempt to take them at face value that lead to people > missing their metaphorical value.
I am not sure that is true. Of course you can take them to be metaphorical, but the average Indian thinks that at a certain time in the past all these things where possible. They believe that Yogis or Rishis do/did have supernormal powers. In fact you can see that people even here on this board believe that without such powers - acquired in whatever way - enlightenment is not real. There were discussions here to that extend. Not my view anyway. > Same with the Bible IMO. So it is > possible to not accept the literal interpretation on the older Vedic > texts and still see them as valuable contributions to human thought. Sure. But that is not the overall or general interpretation. You can take some things from scriptures and discard other things. But thats also a bit like censuring them. > In my view we don't necessarily know why Patanjali wrote what he did > or what state of mind he was in when he wrote it. Taking his writing > as being evidence that these magical powers are possible or that he > had them himself seems naive to me. Thats not what I am saying. I don't cite scriptures as evidence, I rather said that there is no scientific proof. I am just comparing peoples beliefs. If you want to know how many Indians interpret their own scriptures, you would simply need to read 'Autobiography of a Yogi' by Yogananda, which is basically an asortment of miraculous stories. > There are all sorts of things > people have written throughout history for all sorts of reasons other > than accurate reporting of their own experience. Frankly lots of > people just make shit up. Sure.OTOH you would be mistaken that this constitutes any kind of falsification. > Some people are living in states of mental > illness but are otherwise very expressive of their fantasies. And thats an unqualified psychological statement. A belief that is not verified doesn't make a person mentally ill. In fact I think that most people have hidden beliefs they are not even aware of. > I know that some posters here interpret their own personal experiences > as validation for the texts being accurate and literal. Maybe, but not my point. Neither do I mean to say this, nor do I have personal experiences which I would label as 'mind over matter'. > But with a > lack of anyone's ability to demonstrate these powers to others, it > should come as no surprise for modern people to view these claims as > products of human's wonderful creativity and imagination. Sure. But the point is that they are not falsifiable either. The lack of scientific proof may lead you to the *BELIEF* that they don't exist. See, most people in the west, lets say 99% of the people in my country would agree with you. But there are many people in different religions, like Hinduism, Tantric Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity who do believe it, and they are not insane. Its nothing TM specific.As I said, lots of miracle stories in Ammajis biography. Do you think that any one is scientifically validated? So, its quite possible some people are convinced of her Divinity because of such unvalidated stories. The same people who complain about 'wrong claims' with the TM Siddhis are never concerned that they follow somebody about whom equally unverified miraculous claims are being made. IMHO opinion a double standard. > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > Heck, even Jesus Christ allowed himself to be seen > > > ascending to heaven and sitting at the right hand > > > of God. There are all *kinds* of portraits of him > > > doing precisely that. > > > > ROFLOL > > You nailed it Judy, thats so funny, this whole line of argument. The > > bottom line is, who is sitting in a glasshouse shouldn't throw stones. > > People who believe in flying - no scientific proof so far, but equally > > unfalsifiable - make fun of people who believe in flying. > > > > People who believe in flying, because they have the experience of > > having seen it - which doesn't represent any proof, make fun of people > > who believe in flying because of their own experience, and call them > > TBBs, while they themselves are TBBs. > > > > People make fun of other peoples adherence to beliefs, while their own > > belief system is rock-solid. When challenged about their own beliefs > > of witnessing the very same phenomenon, and their psychological > > reactions to it, that is when the validity or seriousness of such a > > show was challenged in one case wished (literally): 'Fuck off and die' > > > > Why is it so difficult for some people, to graciously overlook their > > own vulnerabilities and mock at the other whose belief is no different > > at all? Does not the whole vedic literature suggests strongly a belief > > in siddhis, do not the whole Puranas recount them and all of the > > Yogic and tantric literature is full of references to supernormal > > powers, so anybody basing his/her teachings on such scriptures sits in > > the same boat, and that includes of course Ammaji. While I believe She > > is really doing good work, and is a great being, her whole biography > > is full of references to the supernormal, and the Sri Lalita > > Sahasranam describes the Devi in not unclear terms as the master of > > Siddhis. (The daily recitation of this text is highly recommended by > > Ammaji). I don't want to put Ammaji or Dr. Lenz down with this, I'm > > just pointing out, that you can't believe in one thing and at the same > > time disbelieve in the very same thing. In this argument there is a > > very profound dishonesty. > > >
