--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > > This brings up a very interesting question: *Would* you > > > believe it if you saw it with your own eyes? > > > > > > I ask because there are a few on this forum who have > > > stated that they wouldn't. Sparaig has been outspoken > > > about not trusting his own perceptions. And, whenever > > > I have been honest about my own experiences of seeing > > > someone hover in mid-air (which I have seen hundreds > > > of times, but which was never captured on camera, and > > > thus cannot be proven), many have been quick to tell > > > me that I was hallucinating, or moodmaking, or that > > > I had been hypnotized. > > > > The real issue is that you also said that others in the > > same room with you did NOT see what you saw... > > It's only a "problem" if you think that hovering > is something that happens on a gross physical > level.
I don't believe Lawson said it was a "problem," even though you put the word in quotes as though he did. In fact, it sounds as though *you* have a "problem" with the notion that hovering is something that can happen on a gross physical level. <snip> > Who *knows* why some saw it and some don't? It's > really not my concern. Maybe the ones who didn't > see it were all fucked up on Prozac and wouldn't > have seen Madonna if she walked into the room, > either. :-) Or maybe those who did see it were hypnotized. > My concern is dealing with what *I* experienced. > I have no need to believe that all of the > phenomena I witnessed over the years happened > on the gross physical level. That's *your* hangup, > because you're trying to make reality conform to > how Maharishi describes it. > > It might. But then again, reality might be *far* > more varied -- and interesting -- than he has ever > imagined. Or perhaps he knows all about it and simply finds hovering on the gross physical level a more interesting aspect of reality than the one you're talking about. All Lawson is doing is pointing out that he's talking about one aspect, and you're talking about another; and that the one you're talking about doesn't meet the criteria for the one he's talking about. As new morning would say, "No harm, no foul." Except that it appears to bother you.
