--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2009, at 11:57 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > >> > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > >> <snip> > >>> But seeing siddhis themselves performed actually > >>> becomes kinda ho-hum in a remarkably short period > >>> of time. Even the *stupidest* bhakti has to realize > >>> after a while, "Wow...the guy just levitated again. > >>> Isn't that neat? Wait...I'm the same as I was before > >>> he levitated, therefore seeing him do it didn't do > >>> diddley for me. So what's the point?" > >> > >> Barry, December 2007: > >> > >> "Being around siddhis and having to DEAL with their > >> mind-blowing reality is what I see as one of the main > >> values of them. There is a real benefit to the seeker > >> in having to DEAL with experiences that cannot be > >> intellectually "fit in" to their existing descriptions > >> of the world and how it works. Whatever they consider > >> the siddhis they've seen to be, it puts you through > >> some changes to integrate having witnessed them into > >> your world view. You have to learn a new level of > >> trust in your own experience...." > > > > Barry's 2007 opinion is that witnessing the siddhis > > "puts you through some changes to integrate...into > > your world view." The 2007 change Barry integrated > > into his 2009 world view is that witnessing > > the siddhis do not change your world view. LOL. > > You might want to consider that "sidhis" (the Mahesh > McRishi variety) and "siddhis" are different entities > in Turqs POV. He's probably referring to Rama, not > the Mahesh McSidhis.
ROTFL! Poor Vaj. Of *course* Barry's referring to Rama, both times. He did a 180. That's the *point*, dumbo. Judy commonly tries to > make dishonest statements like these that she either > knows are incorrect parallels (in a pathetic attempt > to deceive and lure someone into arguments) or she's > clueless. Given her consistent dishonesty, my guess > would be the former. Why would I even *want* to make anyone think he was referring to the TM-Sidhis?? Raunchy obviously didn't think that; it wouldn't make any sense. Plus which, Barry's never mentioned witnessing any siddhis associated with the TM-Sidhis. Oh, yes, and in a different paragraph of the current post I quoted, he refers to the TM-Sidhis as "siddhis." And yet another attempt to make me out to be a liar down the drain. How embarrassing for Vaj. I keep catching him in blatant lies, but whenever he tries to pin a lie on me--knowing that I don't lie, but having no other defense--he plasters his face with egg and *confirms* that he's a liar. BTW, nothing wrong with Barry changing his mind about the value of witnessing siddhis. The question is whether he really changes his mind about things or simply changes what he *says* about them depending on what he perceives to be to his advantage in a particular discussion (in the current case, putting down Edg). The fact tht he never says "I used to think X, but now I think Y" when he does one of these flip-flops suggests it's the latter. Chances are he doesn't even remember what he said earlier.
