--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Right. But the issue I'm trying to get at is whether > > > > > > > > it makes sense to claim someone doesn't have the > > > > > > > > siddhis because they do not/cannot perform them on > > > > > > > > demand, e.g., to satisfy a skeptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Do no"t and "cannot" are two different issues according to > > MMY. MMY > > > > > > does not perform > > > > > > > sidhis on demand. Many people believe that he COULD if he wanted > > > > > > (keeping the door > > > > > > > open for him being enlightened by his own definition). In > > fact, he's > > > > > > indicated in public that > > > > > > > he could, if he wanted, so he's kept that door open himself. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, there could be a good deal of semantic > > > > > > ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words: Does he have the ability to want to > > > > > > do siddhis on demand, independently of what nature > > > > > > "wants"? > > > > > > > > > > Does that make any more sense than asking if God can create > > > > > something he cannot move? > > > > > > > > Yes, Two very different questions. > > > > > > Not to me. Both eploit ambiguities of language while raising the > > issue of a possible paradox. > > > > No, it's really quite different. Think about it. > > Not really. By MMY's definition of enlightenment, the sidhis are just as natural for the fully > enlightened to perform as standing up and crossing the room. > > Raising questions about why or why not someone in Unity doesn't float "on demand" is like > asking why someone in Unity does or does not get up and cross the room on demand.
Yes, THAT WAS MY POINT. Sheesh! You said MMY had said he could fly if he wanted to. > Does nature want him to float? Does nature want him to cross the room? > > Could he cross the room if naure didn't want him to? Could you? It was a *rhetorical question*, Lawson, the implied answer to which was "No." It isn't even a paradox if you accept the basic premise. And if you don't, the answer is a definite "Yes." The God question is unanswerable if you accept that God is omnipotent. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/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/
