--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > To All: > > > > > > Siddhis are not restricted to the vedic literature. We find > > > similar feats in the gospels and stories of Christian saints. > > > > The conclusion is inescapable. Because stories of > > siddhis exist in these books, siddhis must exist. > > > > Similarly, stories of not only siddhis but fantastic > > creatures like dragons, trolls, etc. exist in other > > books. These books are often referred to as "fairytales" > > or "myths." Presumably these stories should be given > > EXACTLY the same credence as the stories in the "vedic > > literature" or in the "gospels." > > > > After all, there is EXACTLY the same amount of > > evidence that the stories in the myths and fairytales > > are true as there is that any of the stories in the > > "vedic literature" or "gospels" are true. Therefore > > what I think you're trying to make is that if it's > > a story in a book, it's true. > > > > Or did I get that wrong, John? Were you suggesting > > instead that something is true only if it's a story > > in *some* books? > > > > :-) > > > > Just funnin' wit ya, John. > > > > But seriously, if you feel like it (or if *anyone* > > here feels like it), please present a reason why > > we should consider the Bible or the gospels or the > > "vedic literature" any different from myths and > > fairytales -- or for that matter from any other > > form of fiction -- in terms of their credence or > > accuracy. > > > > A reason other than "Because I believe they are," > > that is. > > > > I'll wait. > > Barry, > > Of course we know the difference between fairy tales and > wisdom books. The authors of fairy tales tell us that > the stories are not literally true.
Thank you for your reply, John, and for making my point for me. Two points in response: 1. You have just affirmed that the only reason you believe that certain books contain "wisdom" and are "true" is that *someone told you they were*. 2. You're dead wrong about the authors of fairy tales and myths "telling us" that they are *not* true. I challenge you to produce an instance of this. You will find *no such evidence* for any of the classic myths, and less for fairy tales written before the 20th century and the advent of modern publishing. Most myths are considered by scholars *amplifi- cations of real events*. The authors made them "sound better" by inventing things to make them sound more interesting. A classic example might be "Beowulf," which author Michael Crichton "took on" as a bet during his college days. He had a classics professor who bet him that he could not tell the story of Beowulf without the magic. Crichton did so, in a month, turning the story into his short novel "Eaters Of The Dead," which was then made into the excellent film "The 13th Warrior." All that he had to do was take out all the "amplification" of real events in the original plot of "Beowulf" and turn them back into real events again. My contention is that the books you call "wisdom books" are EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The authors, in most cases monks who were "sold out" to some vision or some teacher they adored, "amplified" the real events of their lives and *made up stuff* to make those lives sound more "wise" or "profound." The only argument you seem to be able to propose to counter this theory is that these books are literally true "because someone told you they are." Cool, I guess...if that's the kind of led- around-by-the-nose-by-other-people's-claims person you want to be. :-) > Even if unsaid, tradition or experts in the field tell > us that fairy tales are not true. Another appeal to "authority," this time in the form of "experts." :-) > On the other hand, the authors of wisdom books are telling > us of their beliefs. And that makes them "true," right? You and BillyG have suggested in the past that any man who wastes his ojas by over-indulging in sex loses his personal power and thus guarantees his lack of success in things worldly and spiritual. Tell that to Warren Beatty, who seems to have slept with an estimated 12,775 women in his life, and enjoyed a veritable shitload of success. You clearly *believed* this bullshit about the value of celibacy when you said it. But did that make it "true?" Only in your mind. Again, this is my point, and the point you seem incapable of "getting." Your *beliefs* have nothing whatsoever to do with "truth." They are *only* beliefs. Same with the beliefs of the "authors of wisdom books." IT DOESN'T MATTER whether the authors of the "vedic literature" believed what they wrote. And WHY it doesn't matter is that belief has absolutely nothing to do with "truth." > The narratives may be clothe in figurative language such > as those written in the vedic literature or the Judeo- > Christian Bible. But some authors are telling us that > they actually saw the real thing. And you believe them. Even though you cannot provide me with even a *single* example of an author "telling us that they actually saw the real thing" with regard to the "vedic literature," and you can provide me with no reason to *believe* that author if he did. > We as readers can evaluate which of the messages are > figurative and which ones are literally true. You have that same liberty with mainstream fiction. There is no need to ever consider *any* book "true" in order to appreciate what wisdom it contains. Again, you are claiming that the *claim* that a book is "true" makes it "better" than a book for which no such claim was ever made. > From the figurative point of view, we can learn the truth > that is being conveyed by these authors through logic and > reason. As many non-fanatics can do with fiction, or any other book, without the need to claim it is "true." > At this point in time, no one has been able to prove that > anyone can walk on water in the literal sense. Those who > accept this message to be literally true are basing their > acceptance on faith alone, not science or reason. My point exactly. That is *also* what you are doing by revering the "vedic literature" and considering it "true." What you are talking about is FAITH, not TRUTH. That you do not see the difference is the whole reason I brought this subject up. I can appreciate the stories in the "vedic literature" just *as* stories. Whatever "wisdom" might be contained in them is *just as present* if I consider these stories "amplified fiction" as if they were literally true. You don't seem to feel that way. You make a clear distinction between "wisdom books" and other books. I am simply pointing out to that the only *criterion* you are using to make that distinction is WHAT SOMEONE TOLD YOU.
