> > > > > > The kind of levitation/floating that MMY claims to be > > > > > > referring to is the kind that you can photograph and > > > > > > perform > > > > > > before a skeptical audience. > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm. I would be one of those skeptics. Exactly where, > > > > > after 30 years or so, are these photographs that show > > > > > "the kind of levitation" you're talking about? > > > > > > > > > > Could it possibly be that, after 30 years or so, you're > > > > > still assuming that what Maharishi said is true just > > > > > because he said it? :-) > > > > > > > > sure, but I'm not claiming that TM-Sidhis levitation has > > > > happened > > > > or has ever happened, while YOU, in the context of discussing > > > > what most of us assume is TM-Sidhis levitation, DO assert > > > > that it happens and that you have witnessed it. > > > > And? I *have* seen it, many times. Therefore, it falls > > *for me* into a different category of experience than > > something that has only been talked about or speculated > > about. I have no need to convince others that what I > > witnessed was some kind of Grand Truth or anything. > > Some TMers, on the other hand, seem to be rather > > obsessive about declaring their *speculation* -- something > > that they've never seen -- to be Truth. > > > > > > Of course, you object to the "objective observer" aspect of > > > > the TM-sidhis claim because you have already admitted that > > > > YOUR definition of levitation doesn't require that it exist > > > > independently of the receptivity of the observer. I.E., no > > > > cameras, videos, and no million dollar prize possible from > > > > James Randi. > > > > I don't "object" to those things; I just think they're > > kinda silly, that's all, the kind of thing that someone > > who is trying to convince someone of something engages > > in. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. > > > > > But having a double standard, you see--an easy one > > > for yourself and a tough one for everybody else-- > > > is a sign of advanced spiritual development, a > > > recognition that the universe isn't required to > > > obey human rules of logic and consistency if they > > > get in your way. > > > > Apples and oranges, Judy. If Lawson were saying he > > had *witnessed* true levitation, then we'd be comparing > > apples to apples. As far as I remember, he hasn't. I > > have. For me, the phenomenon is part of my subjective > > experience. I need no "objective" verification of it, > > no more than I do for any other subjective experience > > I've had in my life. And I have no need to try to > > convince anyone it was "true." > > > > Lawson is talking about a *theoretical* way of verifying > > something he has never witnessed. He's talking about a > > theoretical way that someone who believes in something > > could use to convince someone else that the something > > is real. I guess that photos are a nice enough way to > > do that, if what is important to you in life is convinc- > > ing other people that what you believe is some kinda > > "Truth," but it seems like a waste of time to me. The > > bottom line is that people are going to believe what > > they want to believe -- no amount of "evidence" that > > you show them is going to convince them to believe > > anything that they *don't* want to believe. > > > > But don't let any of that stop you in your ongoing > > attempts to impose what you believe on the world as some > > kind of "Truth." *Somebody's* got to be the obligatory > > religious fanatic on this group...might as well be you. :-) > > > Asking for independent confirmation of an alleged phenomenon is now > called being a "religious fanatic?"
My snippy remark was aimed at Judy, not you. She's made a "career" out of trying to "prove" her point of view "correct" on the Internet. You have not. My point with regard to your request for "independent confirmation" of the sidhis is based on my sincere belief that the quest for "independent confirmation" of such things is pretty much equivalent to Don Quixote's quest. Nothing you ever find will "prove" anything. I'm amazed sometimes at the *naivete* of the TMO. They seem to believe that if you trot out enough "scientific proof" of something, everyone will believe it and get on board with "the program." Naive to a fault -- the belief system of a bunch of people who never leave their hotels and interact on a one-on-one basis with real people. If they had, they would know that you can present seemingly *irrefutable* proof of something to people until you're blue in the face, and those people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway. And when it comes to levitation, what would consitute "proof?" Photographs? In this age of Photoshop and digital touchups, photos are inadmissible in *court* in many states as "proof." Same with film, in the age of Final Cut. What, after all, does an easily-altered photo or film "prove?" If you're committed to believing that levitation doesn't exist, neither of these things will "prove" the opposite to you. My point is simply that these phenomena -- witnessing the sidhis being manifested -- are so mind-boggling in an energetic way that it's hard to believe them when you yourself are sitting there watching them. To hope to convince *others* that what you saw was "true" is just pretty much out of the question. I understand your desire to convince yourself that levitation can be real. What I'm trying to say is that NO AMOUNT of "objective proof" is going to do that for you. You might convince yourself intellectually, but the first time you actually witness real sidhis or perform them yourself will be the first time you really *believe* they're possible. > No-one has said "your experience is invalid." All *I* have said is > that its not what I define as "Yogic Flying, floating stage," since > that is supposed to be independently verifiable. "Supposed to be?" As if the person who told you that is infallible? Are you looking to determine the truth of the situation or to verify that person's opinion? :-) > It may well be that yours is the original definition, and mine (and > MMY's) is a bogus definition. Mine is not a "definition." It is merely an attempt to describe my own experiences, honestly. > Who can say? But regardless, unless MMY > suddenly changes his definition, I'll continue to accept it as the > one he uses. I *have* no "definition" of levitation. I don't care to have one. I am only trying to describe what I saw and experienced hundreds of times over a 14-year period. I leave it up to folks who need definitions to construct one, whether from theory or from other people's descrip- tions. It'll keep them busy, and then when they finally experience levitation for themselves, their "definition" will give them something to throw on the trash heap. So the effort will not have been wasted. :-) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
