> > > > As I understand it from a muslim friend, Hindus take their > > mythical writings literally. I guess the question is how > > much we need to buy into the idea that there was once human > > beings who could do things that seem to defy reason. In > > today's world the real miracle would be for people to stop > > trying to convince one another that his or her religion / > > belief system trumps that of their neighbours. That would > > be something. > > Indeed it would. > > And it's related to other things I've rapped about > recently -- the relationship of subjective experience > to "Truth," and the relationship of belief to "Truth." > > I hold that there *IS* no such relationship. > > And I hold this speaking as the only person here who > has witnessed siddhis being performed. (Unless you > believe Nabby, that is.) I witnessed levitation, > turning invisible, turning mountains transparent, > and many other siddhis numerous times over a period > of 14 years. > > But does that make such things True? Or "Truth?" >
"By remembering our inner innocence when we begin spiritual work, we ask to have that which is not the truth brought to our awareness. The process is therefore the evidence of success. As a result, there may be a somewhat chaotic appearance to the lives of people who are labeled spiritual seekers. The inner person is pleased because it says, 'I have been asked to see what stands between me and the truth, and that has been brought up from my awareness to be recognized, re-owned, recontextualized, and healed.' We provide a safe space and context about our spiritual work by being centered in the Heart--not the physical heart, but from the ultimate compassion, the owning of our self from this level, the joy of the spiritual work, and the saying 'thank you' to all the things that come up out of gratitude. The crisis is the very event of the spiritual healing. It is out of the crises that the healing occurs." - Dr. David S. Hawkins > Not to me. All it means is that I experienced these > things. I've seen hang-in-midair-for-minutes-at-a- > time levitation *hundreds* of times, but I would not > claim that it exists. My subjective experience tells > me that it exists, but that is ONLY my subjective > experience. Not "Truth." > > It gets even weirder when people claim that things > they have NEVER experienced subjectively but have > only heard of are "Truth." These things aren't even > subjective experience; they are pure BELIEF. And yet > you have millions of people who are willing to claim > that they are "Truth," and even to wage war against > others who don't accept that they are "Truth." > > I think that a little fuckin' humility is in order. > If you experienced something subjectively, you cannot > declare that something to be "Truth." The most you can > legitimately say is that you experienced it subjectively. > > But to claim that something *you haven't even exper- > ienced* is "Truth" because you BELIEVE it is, or > because you read it in a book you consider "Truth?" > That's the absolute *absence* of humility. > > > > --- 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. > > > > > >
