Conference hydra::dejavu

    Notesfile swthom::paris may give an answer.
    
    Is that the same 'Arles' where Vincent Van Gogh spent so much time ?
    
    karl

  As anyone who has read Holy Blood, Holy Grail and other books by the
  same authors knows, this area of France is literally packed with
  fascinating lore and unexplainable phenomena. I believe there may be
  some truth behind the fantastic stories (though a lot of fantasy,
  too).

  At any rate, I vaguely recall a similar story about liquid dribbling
  out of a crypt in the bowels of some abbey. To spoil the story, some
  nasty old scientists went in and opened the thing up, to find that the
  water was coming in through the walls from a natural spring. It sure
  had the locals fired up for quite a while.

  Which brings us to the old Heisenberg principle of this business: if
  you don't look too hard for a physical explanation, it just *might* be
  due to something really interesting. The minute you try to prove
  something, you can be darn sure you're going to prove that there was a
  perfectly sensible explanation. Spirituality evaporates under the
  magnifying glass of physics.

                        
    There are many scientific studies that have been done on Sai Baba,
    a well-known guru from India, who has manifested objects, along with 
    an ash substance called vibhuti. His pictures have been known to 
    generate vibhuti as well.
    
    If anyone is interested, I can provide the book references.
    
    Cindy

>    There are many scientific studies that have been done on Sai Baba,
    ...
>	If anyone is interested, I can provide the book references.
    
    Please do, Cindy.  I'd be very interested in the citations.
    
    						thanks,
    
    						todd

                         
    Todd,
    
    The book I have is:  "Sai Baba Avatar", by Howard Murphet.  The copy I
    have is from India, so you might not be able to find it here.  If not,
    let me know offline.
    
    In it is a chapter entitled "Two Western Researchers".  There is a
    mention of a paper in: "Journal of the American Society for Psychical
    Research, Vol.71, 1977" that talks about Sai Baba's ability. 
    
    I was actually in the presence of a yogi who materialized a bunch of
    objects - some rudraksha beads (one of which I have), some silver coins,
    vibhuti (sacred ash), and some other silver objects.  It was a few 
    months ago.  Not sure if I wrote about it here.  It was interesting.
    Of course I didn't do an indepth scientific research or anything,
    however from what I could observe, he was legit.  [He didn't ask for
    money for it either...]
    
    Cindy

    Sai Baba (with the Jimi Hendrix hair) claims to be the reincarnation of
    Sai Baba of Shirdi, one of the 5 perfect masters that awakened Meher
    Baba.  So tell me why a perfect master needs to reincarnate ?
    
    signed,
    
    dubious

RE:         <<< Note 1758.5 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" >>>
    
�    I was actually in the presence of a yogi who materialized a bunch of
�    objects - some rudraksha beads (one of which I have), some silver coins,
    
    A perfectly ordinary conjuror's trick Cindy, nothing mystical at all. I
    personally, in a small group, have closely watched such a person,
    knowing they were about to "materialise" a small item, and still I
    couldn't catch them doing it. Nor did anyone else, from any angle. A
    skilled conjuror is a wonder to behold.
    
    Laurie.

    Laurie, you are going for the obvious and simple answer. Remember in
    here it one is expected to go for the complicated and obscure answer,
    even if it is unprovable.

    Jamie.

    Yes, true materialization of solid objects is one of the harder
    claims for me to believe as well.  
    
    Thanks very much for the references, Cindy.
    
    							todd

    
    
    	It would be a little refreshing, to say the least,
    	to see those who are always asking for proof, to
    	prove that which they claim to be the Truth.
    
    	I would be very much interested in seeing the proof
    	from anyone who makes claims and never supplies any
    	proof, while at the same time is always asking for 
    	proof from others.
    

    Re .10

    But Juan, anyone can make any claim, without challenging these claims
    there is no way to find out if something is true or false. Merely
    believing in something in no way makes it true.

    Jamie.

>    believing in something in no way makes it true.
    
    No, but it may make it True.  :-)
    						todd

    
    
    	Jamie,
    
    	I'm suspending my usual procedure as to how I determine
    	what the truth is.  So, for a little while, I'm agreeing
    	with you, and I'm joining the "gang" of you who are always
    	asking for proof.  I am only interested in the Truth, 
    	no matter what the Truth might be, that is my goal, 
    	so here is my request...
    
    	I want the Truth, and nothing else, at the present time
    	I believe what I have found is the Truth, but since I'm
    	asking for proof, I will accept any proof that ANYONE
    	has that will absolutely, positively prove that what
    	I believe in is not the Truth, and in its place you
    	will supply me with the real Truth.
    
	Any takers out there...?.
    
  

    Sorry not a chance of me taking you up on that old ploy. You make the
    claims, you prove that they are true. When I make a claim, I back it
    up.

    Remember that the truth of something has nothing to do with the number
    of people who believe in it. For centuries mankind believed that the
    earth was at the centre of the universe and every thing revolved round
    it. Whilst the truth was very different. The universe did not alter
    itself on this discovery.

    Jamie.
                                                                       

    
    	Jamie,
    
    		you are proving my point exactly, just because
    	you believe in something doesn't make it so, but in
    	the end, the Truth will prevail.  I am confident that
    	what I believe in, is the Truth; of course, we are 
    	all humans, and the possibility still exists that none 
    	of us knows what the real Truth is, so we shouldn't
    	go around saying that what somebody else has posted is
    	nonsense just because you don't agree with it.
    
                  

    re: .15,
>    	the end, the Truth will prevail.  I am confident that
>    	what I believe in, is the Truth; of course, we are 
    
    	You're backsliding, Juan.  I thought you were going to leave
    	that lovely critical thinking cap on for the rest of the day.
    
    	Harder work than you thought, eh ?  ;-)
    
    							todd

    Juan, in that case anyone can come in here and post outright lies and
    claim them to be true. Your blind faith in supposition that the Truth
    will prevail, has very little foundation. The truth is readily
    suppressed.

    Basically I think that you duck any challenging of your beliefs because
    you are afraid that if they are brought out into the light of scrutiny
    the will be found to be anything but the truth.

    Jamie.

                    
    Re.7
    
    Perhaps so, Laurie.  I mentioned it only in passing anyway. Besides
    the objects were fairly generic.  And I wanted to make the point 
    that he didn't charge any money for it.                     
    
    Sai Baba, on the other hand, according to the stories I've read, 
    materializes objects such as rings that actually fit the people's 
    ring fingers correctly.  His pictures have been known to produce
    vibhuti as well.
    
    Cindy

    
    	Now we are getting dangerously close to the 
    	bickering treshold, and I said I wouldn't
    	bicker anymore, so I won't.
    
    	As Todd pointed out, I took off my skeptic
    	hat prematurely, so I'm back to my olf self
    	again.  I hoped that the exercise in futility
    	in which I embarked this morning was not a 
    	waste of time, and that we have all learned
    	something from it.
    	
        Todd, I would be interested as to how you
    	would answer my "skeptical" questions.
    
    	Finally, I want to say that I am not afraid
    	that, if what I believe to be the Truth may 
    	be found not to be the Truth.  I know that the 
    	Truth will prevail, and if it turns out that 
    	what I believe to be Truth is not so, then 
    	so be it, I will accept it, as long as I find 
    	the real Truth, nothing else matters.
    
	Since I haven't seen anyone come forth with
    	any other Truth which invalidates my own Truth,
    	I will continue to believe in my own.  After
    	this course of evolution is over, and we all
    	graduate from it, I'm sure we should all gather
    	together to compare notes.  I'm looking forward
    	to it, it should be fun.
    

    
    My sister, who lived in India for two years, spent some time in the
    presence of Sai Baba. She once described to me an experience of seeing 
    the creation of vibhuti thus:
    
    Sai Baba, while seated on the ground, held out his hands, palms up, 
    fingers apart, in a gesture that was not unlike a benediction to 
    the circle of people seated around him. His hands and fingers were 
    clean, and dry, and smooth. He then bunched his fingers together,
    thumbs on top, and began rubbing his thumbs across his fingers. In a 
    few minutes, a powdery substance began to form. At first the quantity 
    was small, and as he continued it became greater, until two small 
    mounds of this greyish-white substance lay on the white cloth 
    beneath him. Someone collected this powder, called vibhuti and later
    distributed small amounts to those who had seen its creation.
    
    I saw the ash, which my sister had kept in a small soapstone container.
    I have no reason to doubt her eyewitness account - the experience
    served for her as one of several epiphanies that brought her from a
    cynical, somewhat distrustful and negative world view to a more
    accepting and trusting attitude, in her words.
    
    gloria 

    	re: .19,
    
>        Todd, I would be interested as to how you
>    	would answer my "skeptical" questions.
    
    	I think I understand what you were trying to accomplish,
    	but I'm not really in agreement with your perspective, Juan.
    
    	I have a lot of respect for critical thinking skills,
    	for use in most situations, including evaluating 
    	arguments about matters presented as fact.  
    
    	Taken alone, without a common basis of understanding somewhere,
    	and a mutual desire to actually resolve something constructive,
    	or common agreement on canons of evidence, obviously any argument 
    	turns into an endless philosophical exercise, like the abstract
    	discursive theology of the middle ages.  
    
    	Your requests seem to me to be invitations to enter into such
    	an exercise, which we should probably take to ::PHILOSOPHY
    	or someplace like that if you really want to get serious
    	about it.  :-)
    
    	I don't attempt to supply conclusive argument for matters of opinion, 
    	or value judgements or matters of faith, nor do I request it from 
    	others.  I hope that helps put my previous snickering into 
    	perspective.  
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    You guys all seem to know what you believe.  
    
    i (on the other hand) believe nothing and everything .. often at the
    same time... and then again since my beliefs change regularly... sort
    of evolve... how can I know what they are well enough to enter a
    discussion about belief?
    
    A paradox.. don't you think?

    First, I will demonstrate that karma cannot exist by assuming that
    it does exist and showing that it leads to an internal contradiction.
    
    Then I will demonstrate that karma does not account for the most
    common kind of suffering in the world, and therefore does not fulfill
    its own claims and is therefore false.
    
    			*		*		*
    
    So, what is the beginning of karma?
    
    Does it begin with the first lifeform?  If so, then what had the
    non-existant predecessor of this lifeform done to deserve being
    born into a single-celled (if that) creature floating in an empty
    sea?
    
    Does it begin with the first human beings?  If so, then what had
    the non-existant predecessor of these people done to deserve being
    born into a life that was "ugly, brutish and short"?  In fact, what
    could these people possibly *do* that would produce bad karma to be
    passed on in future lifetimes?
    
    Heck!  If someone lived a karmically excellent life 500,000 years
    ago, there was no life worthy of being reborn into 499,940 years
    ago.  What happened to those people, who lived a quiet life, gathering
    fruits, vegetables, and grains, and sharing them with their tribesmen
    -- as many did for thousands of generations?  They weren't knowledgable
    enough to be taken off the Wheel of Life, but there was no life
    good enough for them to live.
    
    Does it begin with the coming of Civilization?  (The definition of
    Civilization is left as an exercise for the reader.)  If so, then
    the human population of this planet was only a few million, or tens
    of millions at the time.  There are over six *billion* of us now.
    Where are we inheriting karma from?  There are more people alive now
    than have lived in all the rest of human existance put together;
    there are too many of us for inherited karma from a previous lifetime.
    (And it's even worse if some bad karma is being worked off in
    non-human form.)
    
    No, a glib "Well, we inherit it from older worlds." will not work.
    Somewhere, among those "older worlds" is the first one, and we are
    back to the above set of questions, just to be applied on a different
    planet.
    
    			*		*		*
    
    Consider infant mortality:  We've had a lot of it for as long as we've
    had brains.  What "lesson" does the infant learn?  What "lesson" do
    SO MANY parents need to be taught?  Why do the people who need to
    be taught this "lesson" always come in pairs -- or are women.  What
    "lesson" did the infant learn one million years ago?
    
    						Ann B.

    re .20, thanks for the definition of 'vibhuti', new to me.. I'd also
    heard that Sai Baba manifests trinkets for his followers.. since that's
    apparently what they want.  
    
    I'm holding out for the whole enchilada.  ;-)
    
    karl
    
    p.s. I'd set up a VERSUS topic where the ultra-rationalists and the
    ultra-intuitive can squabble, MUCH improving the signal-to-noise
    ratio in the rest of the topics, but y'all don't have the ability to
    contain yourselves, in my opinion.

>    p.s. I'd set up a VERSUS topic where the ultra-rationalists and the
>    ultra-intuitive can squabble

So which camp would you fall in? In fact, is there anyone in here who would
fall in either camp? Or is everyone somewhere in between, a little of both,
closer to one or the other end of the scale?

    
    Karl:
    
    That's what I might have said, back then...but this substance was like
    no dermal sloughing *I'd* ever seen...including dandruff. And the 
    container, while small, had almost a half-teaspoon of ashy powder.
    
    My question was why, not how. To the assembled faithful, there was no
    need for proof of some supernatural ability. My sister told me that it
    was to remind those present of something they themselves had forgotten
    how to do.
    
    By the way, it's said that vibhuti has properties not unlike those of
    Rescue Remedy.
    
    gloria 

    Is karma necessary or is it just a figment of the imagination? There
    have been lots of things that were thought to be there but when the
    truth finally came out they were found to be unnecessary. The old
    spheres that supported the planets never existed. Ether, a medium that
    permeated all space and transmitted all light and radio waves, was
    later found to be unnecessary.

    Those examples demonstrate that man has a tendency to make things more
    elaborate that they require to be. I think that karma, as described by
    Juan, is just that. Things can be adequately explained without it and
    none of the observable facts have to be altered to do so.
         
    Jamie.

                                                                
          "There are no unnatural or supernatural phenomena, only
           very large gaps in our knowledge of what is natural...
           We should strive to fill those gaps of ignorance.
    
                            - Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut
                              Founder, Noetic Sciences Institute

    
    
    	I am writing from home, so I don't have the book
    	reference with me, I'll post them Monday; but
    	I wanted to refer to entry xx.42 where Ro suggested
    	that it would be more comfortable to read if I used
    	language that was more inclusive.
    
    	I assume Ro was referring to he and she, rather than 
    	just he and man, etc.   It should be understood, and
    	I thought it was already mentioned somewhere, that
    	whenever we refer to he, man, his, etc., it is meant
    	to include all humans, males and females alike, and
    	that it was not meant to exclude anyone.   That has
    	been the practice all along, and in no way it is
    	meant to discriminate against the opposite sex.
    
    	RE: .31
    
    	I can't remember where I read it, but someone said, 
    	and I agree with it completely, the following:
    
    	"There is no unnatural or supernatural phenomenal, 
    	 only superhuman phenomena."   
    
    	I agree with "we should strive to fill those gaps
    	of ignoranc, that Cindy quoted, and I should alsoit has to
    	be natural, otherwise it wouldn't take place, the 
    	limitation of not being able to detect it is in our 
    	imperfect human faculties.
    	

    I agree with that, Juan.

    Who is Sai Baba????
    What does he has to do with Arles-sur-Tech??
    I know only Ali Baba.
    
    Yvonne

Juan,

    <<	just he and man, etc.   It should be understood, and
    <<	I thought it was already mentioned somewhere, that
    <<	whenever we refer to he, man, his, etc., it is meant
    <<	to include all humans, males and females alike, and
    <<	that it was not meant to exclude anyone.   That has
    <<	been the practice all along, and in no way it is
    <<	meant to discriminate against the opposite sex.
    
Thanks Juan, I must have missed your mention of it earlier.

Ro

    .37
    
    Sai Baba is a youngish Indian person with great hair, currently 
    incarnated, claiming to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi, 
    who died earlier in the century, who was one of the Perfect Masters 
    that awakened Meher Baba, the former Merwan S. Irani, who claimed to 
    be the reincarnation of.. 
    
    The difference is that Meher Baba is in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
    
    karl

    
    Yvonne,
    
    To add to -.1, Sai Baba has nothing whatsoever to do with
    Arles-sur-Tech.  I mentioned him because of his unusual abilities.
    
    Cindy