--- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], sgrayatlarge <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Do you facts to show this event really happened? > > > > Of course you don't, nobody does, so it's a story or perhaps > > a legend > > The story appears in two versions of Guru Dev's biography > which was essentially a compilation of discourses by Guru > Dev written down by his disciples wherein he described his > own personal experiences. > > Maybe he or they lied, eh?
Similarly, if one looks at the life of Frederick Lenz - Rama, there are compilations of accounts by hundreds of his students (including my accounts) that report any number of phenomena that most would consider "miracles" or the performance of siddhis. They are equally true, right? :-) > And maybe even though Guru Dev was considered to have > reached the highest pinnacle of spiritual development... By whom? By people who had a vested interest in protecting their "investment" of time and energy and their lives into his teachings. You went through the TM movement, and saw how willing people were to pass along rumors and make up stuff to justify *that* investment of time and energy and their lives, right? And you think that things were somehow *different* around Guru Dev? > ...the use of the siddhis is total bullshit after all. > Ya think? Unlike most (if not all) of you on this forum, I have witnessed siddhis being performed. Were they "real," in the sense that they would have been captured by a video camera recording the events? Beats the shit outa me. Were they "real" in the sense that I and hundreds of others witnessed them and reported witnessing them? You betcha. So what makes any of these reports of siddhis any different than the ones you believe that Guru Dev performed? The fact that you feel an emotionoal resonance with him? That's real scientific. :-) It's a story, John. Unless you were there at the time to witness it yourself, you have *no idea* whether it is a true story or not. And my point is that even if you *had* been there you would not know. All that you would "know" is what you saw, or convinced yourself that you saw. That is not the same thing as "truth." I can accept this, having witnessed siddhis. Why can't you, having not?
