--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You left out the part about Sai Baba playing with > Connie's penis.
The thing that's most fascinating to me about this whole discussion, since I've never had any attraction whatsoever to Sai Baba (siddhis don't impress me much, and his 'fro was always off-putting), is the *extent* to which people who have invested heavily in the belief that he is enlightened will go to to preserve that belief. I've seen it before. Frederick Lenz (Rama) used to speak highly of Sai Baba, although he had never met him. So when films of Sai Baba *obviously* faking his "miracles" are brought up, many of the former Rama students refuse to even watch them. And when stories of his touchy-feely tendencies with young boys come up, they refuse to read them, or do the same thing we're seeing here, try to "shoot the messenger." Why, one wonders? None of them ever studied with Sai Baba, or even met him. The "why" is that *their* teacher, the person they wish to consider infallible, thought that Sai Baba was a good guy. Therefore, to them, Sai Baba *was* a good guy. There is no other possibility. To think that there *is* another possibility would introduce cognitive dissonance, and they'd have to consider the possibility that *their* teacher was less than infallible. That's what I think we're seeing with Nablus. He literally *cannot* believe that Sai Baba is a fraud, because that would open the possibility that Benjamin Creme was...w...w...w...w...wrong. And that's simply out of the question, a possibility that cannot be considered, much less admitted. I think we're seeing the same phenomenon, to some extent, in the people here who get uptight and start attacking others when they question Maharishi's enlightenment. Even though even *they* admit some- times that they've never heard Maharishi *claim* enlightenment, they simply cannot (or will not) allow the idea that he is not enlightened to enter their heads. It's as if they feel it would be some kind of sin. Go figure. And yet another aspect of the same phenomenon can be seen (in my estimation) in the thread asking for people's criteria for *deeming* someone enlightened. If you'll notice, many of the people who have tried to turn that thread into an argument consistently believe that Maharishi or others are enlightened, and state that belief here as if it were an unques- tionable, sacrosanct fact. Yet when asked to provide a reason -- *any* reason -- for why they believe that, they refuse. Again, go figure. > --- nablusos108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This swedish fellow was unable to understand the > > nature of one great > > saint. Then he moves along to another, Sai Baba, and > > again he is unable. > > > > Apparently Sai Baba told him to go home; he would > > father a son. When > > Connies wife conscieved a daughter he became > > furious. > > > > Whatever you hear or read from Connie Larson, take a > > deap breath.
