--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> 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? >
One obviously accepts what one wishes to accept - and rejects what one wishes to reject.
