--- In [email protected], "amarnath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Jason Spock <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well Sir barry, I think Jim is correct. > > > > > > The Hindu Philosophy states, Sidhis are by-products that come > > on its own. > > > > > > It also states, they are distractions that should be avoided > > at all costs. > > > > > > > That's the same old tired misinterpretation of Patañjali! > > Everyone should believe by now, that the demonstrative > > pronoun "te" in "te samaadhaav upasargaa..." apparently > > refers MAINLY to the siddhis mentioned in the previous suutra. > > Why would Patañjali present e.g. tha flying suutra (aakaasha-gamanam) > > *after* that "disclaimer", if it applied to all the siddhis? > > >>>>> > > if you tell your child not to put the hand in fire, > shouldn't you tell/show the child what fire is? >
But you wouldn't call fire "perfect" if it were something to be avoided at all costs.
