Yoga - Yoga Miracles II (Paul, et al)

Author

Yoga Miracles II (Paul, et al)

omjaroo

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

Paul,

This thread propagated rather quickly and became somewhat hard for me
to follow. Which is why I am starting another to answer your questions.

>If this stuff is true why aren't Yogis doing this stuff in Trafalgar
>(or Times) Square? The world would be a better place if we were all doing Yoga,
>so why hide it's potential?

My (only somewhat) flippant quoting of Mat 7:6 was to say that if some
person demonstrated yogic powers they probably would "put upon" and
killed. New Orleans provides a timely example of how some people will
act when they are frightened, actually shooting at those trying to help
them. What can I say? It is human (animal or lizard brain) nature to
kill what we can't understand or frightens us.

Then in response to my quoting a bible passage you launched a
passionate diatribe. So I responded with the question, "do you see
what I mean?" Meaning, that I just so much as mentioned a bible
passage, somewhat in jest, as an answer to your question and it
provoked an attack with accusations of hypocrisy and ineptitude. I can
only imagine what kinds of attacks would be precipitated by someone
claiming "yogic powers". So while you kindly characterize omjaroo
as being witty and wise (thank you BTW) when I quoted the bible you did
not assume years of study and synthesis of written Truth in many
traditions and ask for clarification. Rather it appears you assumed an
assault on your believes and your intelligence as well as a
hypocritical pronouncement by a bible thumping zealot. So then I quoted
(my bad, by this time I am teasing you) Mat 7:1 concerning judgment. In
this case I thought it was you who (mis)judged me :-). Meanwhile I am
having fun noticing that all these quotes are in the same chapter and
just a few verses away for each other :-) Now it is clear to me that
you are sensitive to traditional western religious notions and so I
will, in the future, be more sympathetic about chiding you or trying
to convey an idea to you with bible quotes. :-(

This brings us to what someone has already so fittingly pointed out the
"siddhis" or "powers" are not the point of yoga. To display
them would be most inappropriate for a number of reasons which I
believe were covered in the original thread. But if you are still
unclear, by all means reframe the question and ask. As you read, you
will hear this discussed time and again. Which reminds me; all of the
questions you are struggling with will be answered in the course of
your reading and study. Hence the Mat 7:7-8 citation :-) and an earlier
admonishment to continue to read, study and practice for a year or two
at which time you will be amazed at how many of your questions will be
answered.

Now about my indifference :-) Which I believe was probably more your
impatience. I can't be sure you did not respond to that post.

Anyway, as I read it you believe I was "ducking" the answering of
your questions by quoting the bible, rather than I was giving you my
opinion by quoting scripture. Given what you have shared about yourself
and your search, I can see and appreciate your thinking. I hope I have
clarified my references to the bible and how they relate to the display
of yogic "miracles".

And finally (I think :-) Did I mention there is no such thing as a
"miracle". Every happenstance in existence has a cause which is
intelligent. After all God is Intelligence and would never create
anything that deifies the rules of how things work. That would be
downright idiotic and very unGodlike :-) Things sometimes appear to be
miraculous when we can not see or understand the system underpinning
them. But its there none the less.

Did I cover it?

Jared

Paul H

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

> Paul,
>
> This thread propagated rather quickly and became somewhat hard for me
> to follow. Which is why I am starting another to answer your questions.
>
>
> My (only somewhat) flippant quoting of Mat 7:6 was to say that if some
> person demonstrated yogic powers they probably would "put upon" and
> killed. New Orleans provides a timely example of how some people will
> act when they are frightened, actually shooting at those trying to help
> them. What can I say? It is human (animal or lizard brain) nature to
> kill what we can't understand or frightens us.

What happened in New Orleans is a little different to A Yogi performing a
"miracle". Besides, why assume that people would react with violence or with
any malice at all? For a Yogi, it appears you have little faith in the
spirit of the masses. Take David Blane for instance, the guy levitates in
the middle of the street and the people watching are elated. Sure it's not
the same, but it is a lot closer to what we are talking about than a
hurricane, no sanitation, no water, plague, famine..etc.

Now more than ever people are craving to be inspired and uplifted. Sure you
would get a mixed reaction to a "miracle" but I bet enough people would be
positively influenced to affect a change in society. Besides, look at the
Bible that you quote from; Water to wine? Was Jesus set upon? Moses parting
the Sea, was he hacked to death?

>
> Then in response to my quoting a bible passage you launched a
> passionate diatribe. So I responded with the question, "do you see
> what I mean?" Meaning, that I just so much as mentioned a bible
> passage, somewhat in jest, as an answer to your question and it
> provoked an attack with accusations of hypocrisy and ineptitude. I can
> only imagine what kinds of attacks would be precipitated by someone
> claiming "yogic powers".

Again two very different things. I interpreted your quotation as I would had
it come from the Pope himself... a cop out. I was asking your opinion, not
how well you recollect passages from the Bible. The hypocrisy I was
referring to was in 7:6. A disciple of God is saying "give nothing of any
truth or purity to ignorant people", but I thought we were all God's
children, apparently not if you are poorly educated or narrow minded. 'XXXX
the ignorant' seems to be Matthews way.

Also, I did not call you inept, I merely I stated I thought your opinion was
wrong.

So while you kindly characterize omjaroo
> as being witty and wise (thank you BTW) when I quoted the bible you did
> not assume years of study and synthesis of written Truth in many
> traditions and ask for clarification. Rather it appears you assumed an
> assault on your believes and your intelligence as well as a
> hypocritical pronouncement by a bible thumping zealot. So then I quoted
> (my bad, by this time I am teasing you) Mat 7:1 concerning judgment. In
> this case I thought it was you who (mis)judged me :-). Meanwhile I am
> having fun noticing that all these quotes are in the same chapter and
> just a few verses away for each other :-) Now it is clear to me that
> you are sensitive to traditional western religious notions and so I
> will, in the future, be more sympathetic about chiding you or trying
> to convey an idea to you with bible quotes. :-(

I am not sensitive to Religious notions at all! The Bible has some beuatiful
stuff in it. What I do find objective is plagarism dressed up as wisdom. I
could quote Wordsworth or Shelly all day, but it would offer no insight into
*my* thoughts. So please in future use your own words they have more
substance, humour and wisdom than Bible quotes ever will.

>
> This brings us to what someone has already so fittingly pointed out the
> "siddhis" or "powers" are not the point of yoga. To display
> them would be most inappropriate for a number of reasons which I
> believe were covered in the original thread. But if you are still
> unclear, by all means reframe the question and ask. As you read, you
> will hear this discussed time and again. Which reminds me; all of the
> questions you are struggling with will be answered in the course of
> your reading and study. Hence the Mat 7:7-8 citation :-) and an earlier
> admonishment to continue to read, study and practice for a year or two
> at which time you will be amazed at how many of your questions will be
> answered.

My rebuttal is detailed above. And yes, I am still on my Yogic journey, I
don't just come here for a fight. ;O)

>
> Now about my indifference :-) Which I believe was probably more your
> impatience. I can't be sure you did not respond to that post.
>
> Anyway, as I read it you believe I was "ducking" the answering of
> your questions by quoting the bible, rather than I was giving you my
> opinion by quoting scripture. Given what you have shared about yourself
> and your search, I can see and appreciate your thinking. I hope I have
> clarified my references to the bible and how they relate to the display
> of yogic "miracles".
>
> And finally (I think :-) Did I mention there is no such thing as a
> "miracle". Every happenstance in existence has a cause which is
> intelligent. After all God is Intelligence and would never create
> anything that deifies the rules of how things work. That would be
> downright idiotic and very unGodlike :-) Things sometimes appear to be
> miraculous when we can not see or understand the system underpinning
> them. But its there none the less.
>
> Did I cover it?

Sure, we are using the word "miracle" loosely to describe a Yogi doing
something inspiring in public view.

Thanks for sharing *your* thoughts Jared, you are rarely less than
provocative.

A bloody great big Namaste to you!

Paul

jaj

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

Potential for what? Trickery? If you can watch the amazing feats of
stage magicians like David Copperfield and Siegfried and Roy and
believe they are only trickery - as most people do - why wouldn't you
believe the same if confronted with a real miracle? People will believe
whatever they want to. In his book "The shape of Events to Come" Gopi
Krishna wrote something to the effect that the mind of man has reached
such a degree of materialism that even if a great Angel from God were
to materialise mid-air before the masses with the sound of a great
trumpet only a handful of the simpler folk, perhaps, would listen. The
majority would regard it as an optical illusion and proceed on their
way.[vbcol=seagreen]

Maybe not killed in Western countries nowadays but the established
orders would see him as a threat to their own positions and power and
would refuse to believe his feats genuine and would do their best to
convince their followers that it was all trickery or a manifestation of
the devil like they did in the case of Jesus Christ, and get him locked
up at least.

Take David Blane for instance, the guy levitates in[vbcol=seagreen]
> the middle of the street and the people watching are elated.

Yes but not in the way that will inspire them to live better lives. Nor
would they be if they saw a real miracle, they'd believe it was only
trickery too.

> Now more than ever people are craving to be inspired and uplifted. Sure you
> would get a mixed reaction to a "miracle" but I bet enough people would be
> positively influenced to affect a change in society. Besides, look at the
> Bible that you quote from; Water to wine? Was Jesus set upon? Moses parting
> the Sea, was he hacked to death?

The Lord Jesus was crucified for his efforts, because the vested
interests, led by Caiaphas the high priest, saw him as a threat to
their own power over the ignorant maaaasses.

Furthermore, the "Devil" is also claimed to have magic powers, as also
some evil spirits (poltergeists for instance) They don't inspire people
to take up a spiritual path of good.

If you're looking for proof that these powers exist perhaps you should
study the literature of psychic research, or maybe you could find some
yogi who has them and would show them to you in private, they don't do
it in public, but even if you saw it you'd have to be careful you
weren't being tricked. Hereward Carrington, a leader of the Society for
Psychical Research nearly 100 years ago, was an accomplished stage
magician. Anyone investigating that field would do well to equip
himself with such knowledge of magic trickery.

The occult explanations for productions of physical psychical phenomena
are well known and are explained in such books as "How to Get what you
want through Creative Visualisation" by Roy Eugene Davis (a disciple of
Yogananda) but even though anyone can understand how they are done it
doesn't mean anyone could do them. They are products of the powers of
concentration, visualisation and willpower, which some occultists
develop to a supernormal degree. To get a university degree requires
mastery of the power of concentration, but that sort of concentration
operates only in a wide mental set, and is very different from the
one-pointed concentration of the Adept.
[vbcol=seagreen]

Yes that's right. The yogis regard them as an ignis fatuus or false
flame that will lead the disciple away from the true path to God and
enmesh him in the snares of illusion. They regard them as temptations
to be overcome and think if someone shows them off in public his ego
will lead him astray.

Finally a few words of wisdom from the Lord Jesus which I once read in
the Gospels but don't know where:

"A false and idolatrous generation seeketh for a sign and there shall
be no sign given it but the sign of Daniel the prophet"

"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard sees and shall say to yonder
mountain "Be ye cast into the sea" it shall be done unto you and
nothing shall be impossible unto you"

"When ye pray, believe that ye have the things ye pray for, and ye
shall receive them"

jaj

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

Paul H

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

"jaj" <j_jarred@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126216283.018062.56700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Potential for what? Trickery? If you can watch the amazing feats of
> stage magicians like David Copperfield and Siegfried and Roy and
> believe they are only trickery - as most people do - why wouldn't you
> believe the same if confronted with a real miracle? People will believe
> whatever they want to. In his book "The shape of Events to Come" Gopi
> Krishna wrote something to the effect that the mind of man has reached
> such a degree of materialism that even if a great Angel from God were
> to materialise mid-air before the masses with the sound of a great
> trumpet only a handful of the simpler folk, perhaps, would listen. The
> majority would regard it as an optical illusion and proceed on their
> way.

I am talking about an irrefutable "miracle" something like the following:

1. Parting the waters of the English Channel

2. Making a Football stadium of 50,000 volunteers levitate out of their
seats and land gently on the pitch.

3. Swapping The Statue of Liberty around with Buckingham Palace, leaving
them both there for a week so millions of people could see and touch them.
Then swapping them back in an instant. (Imagine walking up The Mall in
London and seeing The Statue of Liberty there!!!)

4. Something equally "unfakeable" televised live around the world

>
> Maybe not killed in Western countries nowadays but the established
> orders would see him as a threat to their own positions and power and
> would refuse to believe his feats genuine and would do their best to
> convince their followers that it was all trickery or a manifestation of
> the devil like they did in the case of Jesus Christ, and get him locked
> up at least.

Sure those in power would try to cover their positions. But it is unlikely
the wider population would be influencent buy a bunch of Ad men after
witnessing something of the magnitude I am talking about. After all, rather
a lot of people still believe in Jesus.

>
> Take David Blane for instance, the guy levitates in
>
> Yes but not in the way that will inspire them to live better lives. Nor
> would they be if they saw a real miracle, they'd believe it was only
> trickery too.
>

See above. I don't think anyone would be sceptical if they could walk to
France from England surrounded by a wall of water.

>
> The Lord Jesus was crucified for his efforts, because the vested
> interests, led by Caiaphas the high priest, saw him as a threat to
> their own power over the ignorant maaaasses.

He wasn't crucified for performing miracles. He was crucified for who he
was. Don't twist the facts to suit.

>
> Furthermore, the "Devil" is also claimed to have magic powers, as also
> some evil spirits (poltergeists for instance) They don't inspire people
> to take up a spiritual path of good.

Lobbing a cup across a room aint that spectacular though.

>
> If you're looking for proof that these powers exist perhaps you should
> study the literature of psychic research, or maybe you could find some
> yogi who has them and would show them to you in private, they don't do
> it in public, but even if you saw it you'd have to be careful you
> weren't being tricked. Hereward Carrington, a leader of the Society for
> Psychical Research nearly 100 years ago, was an accomplished stage
> magician. Anyone investigating that field would do well to equip
> himself with such knowledge of magic trickery.
>
> The occult explanations for productions of physical psychical phenomena
> are well known and are explained in such books as "How to Get what you
> want through Creative Visualisation" by Roy Eugene Davis (a disciple of
> Yogananda) but even though anyone can understand how they are done it
> doesn't mean anyone could do them. They are products of the powers of
> concentration, visualisation and willpower, which some occultists
> develop to a supernormal degree. To get a university degree requires
> mastery of the power of concentration, but that sort of concentration
> operates only in a wide mental set, and is very different from the
> one-pointed concentration of the Adept.
>
>
> Yes that's right. The yogis regard them as an ignis fatuus or false
> flame that will lead the disciple away from the true path to God and
> enmesh him in the snares of illusion. They regard them as temptations
> to be overcome and think if someone shows them off in public his ego
> will lead him astray.

Fair point.

>
> Finally a few words of wisdom from the Lord Jesus which I once read in
> the Gospels but don't know where:
>
> "A false and idolatrous generation seeketh for a sign and there shall
> be no sign given it but the sign of Daniel the prophet"
>
> "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard sees and shall say to yonder
> mountain "Be ye cast into the sea" it shall be done unto you and
> nothing shall be impossible unto you"
>
> "When ye pray, believe that ye have the things ye pray for, and ye
> shall receive them"

And therein lies the problem for me. I struggle with the concept that I
must surrender all my beliefs and take a leap of faith in to Gods arms, when
I have no proof of his existence. If God made me intelligent why does he
want to act like a fool by abandoning my ideology to find him?

Since having kids I have really questioned my beliefs and come to the
conclusion that, rich or poor, I just want my kids to be happy. Not just
full of fun, but profoundly, deeply content. That alone would fulfil me. I
can't see any way of attaining this with material possessions, so I am
looking to Yoga for some clues. I have always thought religion was for mugs
and still do, but Yoga is different, although the same questions apply.

With Yoga or Religion one has to "let go". As an agnostic I find that a very
hard task.

Paul

omjaroo

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

>
> What happened in New Orleans is a little different to A Yogi performing a
> "miracle".
Because? Were you going to provide an example or rational or am I to
take your assertion on "faith?" :-)
> Besides, why assume that people would react with violence or with
> any malice at all? For a Yogi, it appears you have little faith in the
> spirit of the masses.
The definition of a "yogi" is anyone who studies or practices yoga. That
makes you a yogi. Welcome to the club :-) The fact that someone is a
yogi does not suppose any qualification as to experience, skill or
disposition. Perhaps you were thinking of a "swam," "shadhu, saint, sage
or any individual who has taken "vows of renunciation" or otherwise
committed themselves to life of adoration and service to God.

There is a common misconception concerning great saints and sages. That
is that they want (or should want) to change the world; to help people.
I admit that I operated under this erroneous notion for a long time
until I came to understand that it is not possible to help anyone, other
then yourself. The universe is functioning absolutely perfectly in any
and every instance throughout all of existence. There is nothing out of
place. There is no wrong. There is no one suffering needlessly or
gratuitously. Nor is there any such thing as unfair. Everything is just
as it should be. If someone is suffering this is the natural and
inevitable consequence of having broken Universal law (Puma :-) and is
what a person needs, to be motivated, to become aware and make the
needed adjustments in their affairs. Yogis cannot defy Universal law,
nor would they want to. If they try, they too will be reminded of their
error by some form of suffering.
An experienced yogi will learn that the Universe is about personal
responsibility; about the Self. The only one a yogi can help is
themselves (Dave :-) and only in this way can they be of help to others.
How I help myself is by developing awareness, control and acceptance. If
I want to stop war in the world I have to stop the war in my heart. If I
want to dispel ignorance in the world then I need to learn the Truth. If
I want to end suffering then I need to let go of suffering in my own
life. And so on. Because as a wise sponsor in AA once told me, Jared you
can't give to others what you don't haveŠ

> Take David Blane for instance, the guy levitates in
> the middle of the street and the people watching are elated. Sure it's not
> the same, but it is a lot closer to what we are talking about than a
> hurricane, no sanitation, no water, plague, famine..etc.
Entertainment, generally is not frightening and even if it is, it is
understood to be entertainment and therefore non-threatening. I don't
see how this relates to what I was taking about.
>
> Now more than ever people are craving to be inspired and uplifted.Sure you
I really doubt people are any more or less craving then the have ever
been :-)
> would get a mixed reaction to a "miracle" but I bet enough people would be
> positively influenced to affect a change in society. Besides, look at the
> Bible that you quote from; Water to wine? Was Jesus set upon? Moses parting
> the Sea, was he hacked to death?
They tried to stone Jesus to death a half dozen times and finally he was
crucified. I would call that set upon. Moses? Well duh, he was saving
their lives, what reason (fear or otherwise) would they have to kill him?
>
> Again two very different things. I interpreted your quotation as I would had
> it come from the Pope himself... a cop out. I was asking your opinion, not
> how well you recollect passages from the Bible. The hypocrisy I was
> referring to was in 7:6. A disciple of God is saying "give nothing of any
> truth or purity to ignorant people", but I thought we were all God's
> children, apparently not if you are poorly educated or narrow minded. 'XXXX
> the ignorant' seems to be Matthews way.
I don't get any of what you are saying from what I read in the Bible.
But I could certainly sympathize with your distaste for and rejection of
it (along with religion) if what I was hearing is what you appear to get
from it :-(
>
> Also, I did not call you inept, I merely I stated I thought your opinion was
> wrong.
Wait, there must be a difference here. IneptŠ wrong? IneptŠ wrong?
IneptŠwrong? Hmm.. Sorry can't see it :-)
>
> So while you kindly characterize omjaroo
I'm disappointed you didn't respond to this.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I am not sensitive to Religious notions at all! The Bible has some beuatiful
> stuff in it. What I do find objective is plagarism dressed up as wisdom. I
> could quote Wordsworth or Shelly all day, but it would offer no insight into
> *my* thoughts. So please in future use your own words they have more
> substance, humour and wisdom than Bible quotes ever will.
Thanks for saying so and I'll give you humor but where do you suppose
some of my substance and wisdom come from?
>
> My rebuttal is detailed above. And yes, I am still on my Yogic journey, I
> don't just come here for a fight. ;O)
Yes I believe you. Do you suppose I am here for a fight? When you focus
your struggle inward towards yourself (the Self) then the arguments with
persons, places and things outside of you will no longer hold any
meaning. You are not fighting (discussing) with me you are fighting with
yourself. I understand that. I do the same thing. We all do. God is not
the problem, nor religion, nor suffering, nor is there any problem
outside of us at all. It's all an inside job, as they say. Think about
it. If you were dead this moment, what would this discussion or anything
outside of your real Self mean at all. Yes, exactly nothing. Remember
you are the only Thing in the Universe. You are Everything in the
Universe. You are the Universe. This is Yoga. This is why we practice
yoga. So we can appreciate, understand and live with this knowledge
(Truth).
Insert (explanation, response, apology, etc) here :-)[vbcol=seagreen]
I made a great big jump here, did you notice?[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Sure, we are using the word "miracle" loosely to describe a Yogi doing
> something inspiring in public view.
>
> Thanks for sharing *your* thoughts Jared, you are rarely less than
> provocative.
You're welcome, and I appreciate your thoughtful and well written
exchange.
> A bloody great big Namaste to you!
>
> Paul

Jared
o
^

Wade Humeniuk

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

Paul H wrote:
> And therein lies the problem for me. I struggle with the concept that I
> must surrender all my beliefs and take a leap of faith in to Gods arms, when
> I have no proof of his existence. If God made me intelligent why does he
> want to act like a fool by abandoning my ideology to find him?
>

You do not have to abandon anything. If something is the truth, it is the
truth on all levels, including logical. When it comes to "proof" of
"his" existence. It is not that one's conception of what "he" suddenly
manifests and you say "aah there you are, why where you hiding?". It
is your conception that changes. Instead of the classic case of where
some people think God is just a more powerful human being it changes into
larger view.

Why the hell are you struggling at all? Don't think for a second that you
have to knuckle under to another's beliefs, especially if they are
written down. The practice of yoga is there to make one strong
and flexible, to have an open mind, to not be manipulated by others'
desires and plans. From your comments you already have much of that,
do not give it away.

http://www.prahlad.org/gallery/ommen_speech.htm

> Since having kids I have really questioned my beliefs and come to the
> conclusion that, rich or poor, I just want my kids to be happy. Not just
> full of fun, but profoundly, deeply content. That alone would fulfil me. I
> can't see any way of attaining this with material possessions, so I am
> looking to Yoga for some clues. I have always thought religion was for mugs
> and still do, but Yoga is different, although the same questions apply.
>
> With Yoga or Religion one has to "let go". As an agnostic I find that a very
> hard task.
>

This is not what is meant by letting go. As you go through life you
may have noticed how one has been mostly wrong and how things change.
You will find many people (even in yoga) who get stuck looking at pretty
baubles along the way. They think they have found the truth, and the
prettier the bauble the harder it is to "let go" and leave it behind.
Don't become a bird in a gilded cage.

Wade

jaj

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

>
> I am talking about an irrefutable "miracle" something like the following:
>
> 1. Parting the waters of the English Channel

According to the Biblical account, when Moses parted the waters of the
Red Sea for the Israelites to escape, that didn't inspire the pursuing
Egyptian army to suddenly turn into nice guys and let them escape.
>
> 2. Making a Football stadium of 50,000 volunteers levitate out of their
> seats and land gently on the pitch.

I suspect they would be furious thinking they had been mass hypnotised
or fed something to drive them out of their minds for a while.

> 3. Swapping The Statue of Liberty around with Buckingham Palace, leaving
> them both there for a week so millions of people could see and touch them.
> Then swapping them back in an instant. (Imagine walking up The Mall in
> London and seeing The Statue of Liberty there!!!)

On TV I saw David Copperfield make an entire train disappear. And I
read that he also temporarily made the Statue of Liberty disappear. So
what else is new? Those feats didn't convert anyone, even though they
can't explain them.
>
> 4. Something equally "unfakeable" televised live around the world.

Well, Our Lord said somewhere in the Gospels "If they believed not ****
and the prophets they would believe not even though one rose from the
dead"

God could, of course, convert the world instantly but He chooses not to
do so and lets evolution and personal karma work themselves out, or
something like that.

> See above. I don't think anyone would be sceptical if they could walk to
> France from England surrounded by a wall of water.

See above, concerning Egyptian army.

> He wasn't crucified for performing miracles. He was crucified for who he
> was. Don't twist the facts to suit.

And who was he? A preacher who was getting a lot of influence over the
masses and apparently working miracles as well. He was, in their view,
getting too big for his boots.

> Lobbing a cup across a room aint that spectacular though.

I can see you'd be very hard to please. Only a really BIG miracle would
please you. However, very few people with paranormal powers would be
able to do things like make the statue of liberty apparently disappear.
It would be much easier to make a cup lob across the room, but that
wouldn't impress you.

>
>
> And therein lies the problem for me. I struggle with the concept that I
> must surrender all my beliefs and take a leap of faith in to Gods arms, when
> I have no proof of his existence. If God made me intelligent why does he
> want to act like a fool by abandoning my ideology to find him?
>
> Since having kids I have really questioned my beliefs and come to the
> conclusion that, rich or poor, I just want my kids to be happy. Not just
> full of fun, but profoundly, deeply content. That alone would fulfil me. I
> can't see any way of attaining this with material possessions, so I am
> looking to Yoga for some clues. I have always thought religion was for mugs
> and still do, but Yoga is different, although the same questions apply.
>
> With Yoga or Religion one has to "let go". As an agnostic I find that a very
> hard task.
>
> Paul

One should want proof before one believes any religion, and enough
proof can be found to guide one. Unless one gets the basics right a
religious belief can be undermined if found to conflict with certain
truths. That's why I think Ramacharaka in his "Fourteen Lessons in Yogi
Philosophy" takes the right approach. He writes about the basics first
like the existence of the spiritual body (which St Paul mentioned), the
aura, life after death, reincarnation etc and even though his book has
several shortcomings on the other hand anyone interested can look into
these matters more deeply elsewhere and see what he can make of them.
For instance, the astral body, proof of whether it exists or not, and
how to project it, and the nature of the spiritual worlds which can be
visited by some incarnates are the subject of many books available at
the Theosophical Society. A book which contains irrefutable proof of
life after death, according to C W Leadbeater in post-1923 editions of
his book "The Astral Plane" is "Life Beyond Death With Evidence" by Rev
Charles Drayton Thomas which is now out of print (unless Kessinger has
it) One could read up on reincarnation in such books as "Twenty Cases
Suggestive of Reincarnation" by Stephenson (I think) and decide whether
its worth provisionaly accepting in the absence of definite personal
proof of one's own. The higher philosophy relating to God is introduced
in Ramacharaka's other books and one can make up one's mind on the
basis of the information one has. Its this sort of knowledge which is
lacking in the Christian Church but if they had it it would enable them
to get rid of the errors in their beliefs.

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

"jaj" <j_jarred@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126405756.790914.3110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
following:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> According to the Biblical account, when Moses parted the waters of the
> Red Sea for the Israelites to escape, that didn't inspire the pursuing
> Egyptian army to suddenly turn into nice guys and let them escape.
>
> I suspect they would be furious thinking they had been mass hypnotised
> or fed something to drive them out of their minds for a while.
>
them.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> On TV I saw David Copperfield make an entire train disappear. And I
> read that he also temporarily made the Statue of Liberty disappear. So
> what else is new? Those feats didn't convert anyone, even though they
> can't explain them.
>
> Well, Our Lord said somewhere in the Gospels "If they believed not ****
> and the prophets they would believe not even though one rose from the
> dead"
>
> God could, of course, convert the world instantly but He chooses not to
> do so and lets evolution and personal karma work themselves out, or
> something like that.
>
>
> See above, concerning Egyptian army.
>
>
> And who was he? A preacher who was getting a lot of influence over the
> masses and apparently working miracles as well. He was, in their view,
> getting too big for his boots.
>
>
> I can see you'd be very hard to please. Only a really BIG miracle would
> please you. However, very few people with paranormal powers would be
> able to do things like make the statue of liberty apparently disappear.
> It would be much easier to make a cup lob across the room, but that
> wouldn't impress you.
>
when[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
mugs[vbcol=seagreen]
very[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> One should want proof before one believes any religion, and enough
> proof can be found to guide one. Unless one gets the basics right a
> religious belief can be undermined if found to conflict with certain
> truths. That's why I think Ramacharaka in his "Fourteen Lessons in Yogi
> Philosophy" takes the right approach. He writes about the basics first
> like the existence of the spiritual body (which St Paul mentioned), the
> aura, life after death, reincarnation etc and even though his book has
> several shortcomings on the other hand anyone interested can look into
> these matters more deeply elsewhere and see what he can make of them.
> For instance, the astral body, proof of whether it exists or not, and
> how to project it, and the nature of the spiritual worlds which can be
> visited by some incarnates are the subject of many books available at
> the Theosophical Society. A book which contains irrefutable proof of
> life after death, according to C W Leadbeater in post-1923 editions of
> his book "The Astral Plane" is "Life Beyond Death With Evidence" by Rev
> Charles Drayton Thomas which is now out of print (unless Kessinger has
> it) One could read up on reincarnation in such books as "Twenty Cases
> Suggestive of Reincarnation" by Stephenson (I think) and decide whether
> its worth provisionaly accepting in the absence of definite personal
> proof of one's own. The higher philosophy relating to God is introduced
> in Ramacharaka's other books and one can make up one's mind on the
> basis of the information one has. Its this sort of knowledge which is
> lacking in the Christian Church but if they had it it would enable them
> to get rid of the errors in their beliefs.

Howdy!

re: "One should want proof before one believes any religion "
Are you talking about proof or EVIDENCE? There's a big difference!

If faith and proof are not diametrically opposed they are, at the very least
mutually exclusive.

If you have one there is no need of the other!

--
Namaste

Dave ©¿©
"Ego sum quis Ego sum quod ut est quicumque Ego sum"

http://www.howdydave.com

jaj

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:

> Howdy!
>
> re: "One should want proof before one believes any religion "
> Are you talking about proof or EVIDENCE? There's a big difference!

Well its desirable to have proof that a religion is true insofar as
proof is available, and lacking such complete proof one would have to
decide what to do with any evidence or information one had.
>
> If faith and proof are not diametrically opposed they are, at the very le=
ast
> mutually exclusive.

You're talking about blind faith though.

> If you have one there is no need of the other!
>
There's a big need for the other if one's blind faith is leading one in
the wrong direction, as in the case of suicide bombers for instance.

> Namaste
>
> Dave =A9=BF=A9
> "Ego sum quis Ego sum quod ut est quicumque Ego sum"
>=20
> http://www.howdydave.com

Dave ©¿©¬

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

"jaj" <j_jarred@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126416136.707392.222350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well its desirable to have proof that a religion is true
> insofar as
> proof is available, and lacking such complete proof one
> would have to
>decide what to do with any evidence or information one
> had.

If there was proof it would no longer be "religion" -- it would be "fact."

[vbcol=seagreen]
> You're talking about blind faith though.

I'm not talking about blind faith, but I am talking about scientific proof.

>
>There's a big need for the other if one's blind faith is
> leading one in
> the wrong direction, as in the case of suicide bombers for
> instance.

Are we talking about "the wrong direction" according to the light of the
believer or according to the light of a third party, like you or me?

Were the crusades "the wrong direction"? No intentional suicide there, just
wanton slaughter and people going to a foreign land willing to die in order
to promote their faith.

--
Namaste

Dave ©¿©
"Ego sum quis Ego sum quod ut est quicumque Ego sum"

http://www.howdydave.com

jaj

2005-09-24, 2:25 pm

Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:
> "jaj" <j_jarred@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126416136.707392.222350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Dave =A9=BF=A9=AC wrote:
>
>
>
> If there was proof it would no longer be "religion" -- it would be "fact."

As far as you can see, religion is only a matter of belief, not of
fact.

I don't agree. You'd have to define very carefully what you mean by
faith. I may say that I am of the "opinion" that what I know to be a
fact is true, but only to accomodate another's opinion, which might be
irrelevant to me, and as a sign that I'm not interested in arguing
about it with a fanatic or someone who doesn't want to change his
opinion.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I'm not talking about blind faith, but I am talking about scientific proo=
f=2E

There can be other sorts of proof than scientific ie laboratory proof.
>
>
> Are we talking about "the wrong direction" according to the light of the
> believer or according to the light of a third party, like you or me?

I'm talking about what is for the good of all concerned.
>
> Were the crusades "the wrong direction"? No intentional suicide there, ju=
st
> wanton slaughter and people going to a foreign land willing to die in ord=
er
> to promote their faith.

Well, they were based on ignorance, and they were not for their own
good or the ones who were slaughtered by the crusaders.
>
>
> --
> Namaste
>
> Dave =A9=BF=A9
> "Ego sum quis Ego sum quod ut est quicumque Ego sum"
>=20
> http://www.howdydave.com

omjaroo

2005-09-24, 2:26 pm

>Well, they were based on ignorance

Please... Granted these transgressions (of the Christian religion) were
not based on "faith", but they were none the less "willful" and
certainly not based on a "non-awareness" of what they were doing or why
they were doing it.

Jared

Paul H

2005-09-24, 2:26 pm

"omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omjaroo-B2AB4C.08052209092005@news.corenews.com...
>
> Because? Were you going to provide an example or rational or am I to
> take your assertion on "faith?" :-)

Of course they are massively different! One is an freak storm causing death
and destruction. The other is a bloke in a loin cloth doing something groovy
for the benefit of mankind. How much more different could they be?

> The definition of a "yogi" is anyone who studies or practices yoga. That
> makes you a yogi. Welcome to the club :-) The fact that someone is a
> yogi does not suppose any qualification as to experience, skill or
> disposition. Perhaps you were thinking of a "swam," "shadhu, saint, sage
> or any individual who has taken "vows of renunciation" or otherwise
> committed themselves to life of adoration and service to God.

Regardless of which category you fit into, the statement still stands.

>
> There is a common misconception concerning great saints and sages. That
> is that they want (or should want) to change the world; to help people.
> I admit that I operated under this erroneous notion for a long time
> until I came to understand that it is not possible to help anyone, other
> then yourself. The universe is functioning absolutely perfectly in any
> and every instance throughout all of existence. There is nothing out of
> place. There is no wrong. There is no one suffering needlessly or
> gratuitously. Nor is there any such thing as unfair. Everything is just
> as it should be. If someone is suffering this is the natural and
> inevitable consequence of having broken Universal law (Puma :-) and is
> what a person needs, to be motivated, to become aware and make the
> needed adjustments in their affairs.
> Yogis cannot defy Universal law,
> nor would they want to. If they try, they too will be reminded of their
> error by some form of suffering.
> An experienced yogi will learn that the Universe is about personal
> responsibility; about the Self. The only one a yogi can help is
> themselves (Dave :-) and only in this way can they be of help to others.
> How I help myself is by developing awareness, control and acceptance. If
> I want to stop war in the world I have to stop the war in my heart. If I
> want to dispel ignorance in the world then I need to learn the Truth. If
> I want to end suffering then I need to let go of suffering in my own
> life. And so on. Because as a wise sponsor in AA once told me, Jared you
> can't give to others what you don't haveS
>
> Entertainment, generally is not frightening and even if it is, it is
> understood to be entertainment and therefore non-threatening. I don't
> see how this relates to what I was taking about.
> I really doubt people are any more or less craving then the have ever
> been :-)
> They tried to stone Jesus to death a half dozen times and finally he was
> crucified. I would call that set upon. Moses? Well duh, he was saving
> their lives, what reason (fear or otherwise) would they have to kill him?

So you believe Jesus was persecuted for performing miracles rather than
saying he was the son of God? Please! I don't remember reading anything
along the lines of "Kill him he healed that womans Aunt" in the Bible.

As for Moses, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Up until now you have
implied that the masses would react adversely to "miracles". I didn't know
there were any caveats to that statement, there are none in 7:6. How did
those people know that the sea wouldn't swallow them up and moses was luring
them to there deaths?

> I don't get any of what you are saying from what I read in the Bible.
> But I could certainly sympathize with your distaste for and rejection of
> it (along with religion) if what I was hearing is what you appear to get
> from it :-(

What does 7:6 say to you?

> Wait, there must be a difference here. IneptS wrong? IneptS wrong?
> IneptSwrong? Hmm.. Sorry can't see it :-)

I said "I disagree", not "You are a buffoon". Quite a big difference

No no no!!! I did not accuse **YOU** of hypocrisy. I said that 7:6 is
hypocritical! And why would I assume anything about you from a quote?!. It
was a quote and I treated it as such..someone else's words.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'm disappointed you didn't respond to this.

Done :O)

>
> Thanks for saying so and I'll give you humor but where do you suppose
> some of my substance and wisdom come from?

Youy imagination, your spirit, your experiences and least of all books. It
is your interpretation of literature and life that is important to me, not
your memory.

> Yes I believe you. Do you suppose I am here for a fight? When you focus
> your struggle inward towards yourself (the Self) then the arguments with
> persons, places and things outside of you will no longer hold any
> meaning. You are not fighting (discussing) with me you are fighting with
> yourself. I understand that. I do the same thing. We all do. God is not
> the problem, nor religion, nor suffering, nor is there any problem
> outside of us at all. It's all an inside job, as they say. Think about
> it. If you were dead this moment, what would this discussion or anything
> outside of your real Self mean at all. Yes, exactly nothing. Remember
> you are the only Thing in the Universe. You are Everything in the
> Universe. You are the Universe. This is Yoga. This is why we practice
> yoga. So we can appreciate, understand and live with this knowledge
> (Truth).

You just blew my socks off again!

:O)

True.

I can't be sure you did not respond to that post.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Insert (explanation, response, apology, etc) here :-)

No. Sort of. My opinion is shifting all the time...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I made a great big jump here, did you notice?

?

> You're welcome, and I appreciate your thoughtful and well written
> exchange.
>
> Jared
> o
> ^

Nice smiley BTW. (Can't find that key on my keyboard.)

:<

omjaroo

2005-09-24, 2:26 pm

In article <IXiVe.5674$yF2.3833@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
"Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> "omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:omjaroo-B2AB4C.08052209092005@news.corenews.com...
>
> Of course they are massively different! One is an freak storm causing death
> and destruction. The other is a bloke in a loin cloth doing something groovy
> for the benefit of mankind. How much more different could they be?

I guess I didn't do well at making my point here. Oh well, I'm sure we
will visit again some time :-)
>
>
> Regardless of which category you fit into, the statement still stands.

See above.
>

I am very surprised you did not react to this idea.

snip
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> So you believe Jesus was persecuted for performing miracles rather than
> saying he was the son of God? Please! I don't remember reading anything
> along the lines of "Kill him he healed that womans Aunt" in the Bible.

Yes I believe it was because he "healed" on the Sabbath.
>
> As for Moses, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Up until now you have
> implied that the masses would react adversely to "miracles". I didn't know
> there were any caveats to that statement, there are none in 7:6. How did
> those people know that the sea wouldn't swallow them up and moses was luring
> them to there deaths?

I can't be held responsible for "implications". I am not in control of
those in any way :-)
>
snip
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I said "I disagree", not "You are a buffoon". Quite a big difference

OK
>
>
>
> No no no!!! I did not accuse **YOU** of hypocrisy. I said that 7:6 is
> hypocritical! And why would I assume anything about you from a quote?!. It
> was a quote and I treated it as such..someone else's words.

Oh, now I understand. Sorry my mistake.

>
>
> Done :O)
>
>
> Youy imagination, your spirit, your experiences and least of all books. It
> is your interpretation of literature and life that is important to me, not
> your memory.

I suppose you are correct. However I think you underestimate how
important books (the imagination, spirit and experience of others) have
been in my growing up and maturing.
>
> You just blew my socks off again!
>
> :O)

Er, eh, what's that you say sonny? Can't find yer socks? :-)
>
>
> True.
>
> I can't be sure you did not respond to that post.
>
> No. Sort of. My opinion is shifting all the time...

That's the nature of opinions, I suppose. Truth on the other hand never
shifts. It is what it is.
>
> ?

I guess that means you didn't. Oh well, just thought I would point that
out because I do that sometimes. I will dismiss an entire idea or line
of discussion because it isn't even related to reality in the first
place. Or I will point out that what's being discussed is not in
alignment with what is True (what really exists) and that we are
speaking in or with symbols which have no objective existence.
>
> Nice smiley BTW. (Can't find that key on my keyboard.)
>
> :<

lowercase o (letter o)
return
Shift 6

Jared

o
^

Paul H

2005-09-24, 2:26 pm

>
> I am very surprised you did not react to this idea.

I can understand that if I am unkind in thought or deed it will come back to
me because I have messed with the positive and progressive energy within
myself and created a negative, disruptive energy. That makes sense to me.
If I send out a bad feeling, traces of it linger within me and affect my
judgement, heath, stress levels, etc.. etc..Yep I get that.

A while ago I read an abundance book by Stuart Wilde who implied that the
Jews manifested the Holocaust. This is on the same track as the stuff puma
comes out with, saying George Bush's foreign policy is the cause of Katrina.
I just can't rationalise that on *any* level.

I can't resist it I'm gonna have to start a new (provocative) thread on this
one... :o.

Paul

BTW, thanks for your continued wisdom Jared. I may come across a bit
opinionated and brash sometimes, but it's simply because I want to get to
the guts of the matter via the shortest route, which I know, isn't always
viable.

0
^

(Namaste smiley v1.5)

Paul H

2005-09-24, 2:26 pm

"Wade Humeniuk" <whumeniu+anti+spam@telus.net> wrote in message
news:2jiUe.219985$9A2.2498@edtnps89...
> Paul H wrote:
>
> You do not have to abandon anything. If something is the truth, it is the
> truth on all levels, including logical. When it comes to "proof" of
> "his" existence. It is not that one's conception of what "he" suddenly
> manifests and you say "aah there you are, why where you hiding?". It
> is your conception that changes. Instead of the classic case of where
> some people think God is just a more powerful human being it changes into
> larger view.
>
> Why the hell are you struggling at all? Don't think for a second that you
> have to knuckle under to another's beliefs, especially if they are
> written down. The practice of yoga is there to make one strong
> and flexible, to have an open mind, to not be manipulated by others'
> desires and plans. From your comments you already have much of that,
> do not give it away.
>
> http://www.prahlad.org/gallery/ommen_speech.htm
>
>
> This is not what is meant by letting go. As you go through life you
> may have noticed how one has been mostly wrong and how things change.
> You will find many people (even in yoga) who get stuck looking at pretty
> baubles along the way. They think they have found the truth, and the
> prettier the bauble the harder it is to "let go" and leave it behind.
> Don't become a bird in a gilded cage.
>
> Wade

Thanks Wade, thanks to you and others, I am *slowly* starting to grasp this
stuff.

hbkta@aol.com

2005-09-24, 2:26 pm

Paul H wrote:

>
> I can understand that if I am unkind in thought or deed it will come back to
> me because I have messed with the positive and progressive energy within
> myself and created a negative, disruptive energy. That makes sense to me.
> If I send out a bad feeling, traces of it linger within me and affect my
> judgement, heath, stress levels, etc.. etc..Yep I get that.
>
> A while ago I read an abundance book by Stuart Wilde who implied that the
> Jews manifested the Holocaust. This is on the same track as the stuff puma
> comes out with, saying George Bush's foreign policy is the cause of Katrina.
> I just can't rationalise that on *any* level.
>

I agree, that is a bit of a stretch. Hurricanes have been happening to
the land now called USA for a very long time and no doubt they will
continue to happen to that land mass long after the USA is relegated to
ancient history.

> I can't resist it I'm gonna have to start a new (provocative) thread on this
> one... :o.
>
> Paul
>
> BTW, thanks for your continued wisdom Jared. I may come across a bit
> opinionated and brash sometimes, but it's simply because I want to get to
> the guts of the matter via the shortest route, which I know, isn't always
> viable.
>
> 0
> ^
>
> (Namaste smiley v1.5)