in spite of you responding to me as a condescending asshole, a role which you apparently relish, i'll respond to the core of what my issue is with the rational part of what you have written:
> > > They state fantastic things -- things that 99.9% of > > > the human beings on this planet would consider nut- > > > baggery -- as if they were established fact. And > > > they clearly believe *that* they are established > > > fact. I am certain that John is being completely > > > sincere in stating that this "ideal society" he is > > > talking about in the future once existed in full > > > flower here on Earth. > > > > > > But WHY does he believe this? > > > > > > Clearly, there is no historical record to support the > > > claim. Just as clearly, all historical evidence refutes > > > it entirely and suggests the opposite. But yet he > > > believes it to the core of his being. WHY? you make a claim here that history refutes what John believes. i disagree. ancient historical records are very subjective, because of the rarity of written records the further back in time that we go. and there is even a limit as to how far back historical records go, period. if as the Maharishi and others (like Edgar Cayce, for example) have said, that human civilizations go back much further than is commonly accepted, it is entirely possible that a Vedic civilization existed at some point, without any currently existing written or archeological records. sure, you make your magical claims about golden light and levitation, while John claims that Vedic civilization in its purity existed once. the commonality? both are claims that cannot be independently verified, or dismissed. i am genuinely sorry that your limited intellect was unable to bridge the extent of my thinking, but the comparison between your assumptions and John's is an apt one. now you can yell at me and continue to wet your pants, but my question to you still stands: why one standard of criteria for you, and quite another for those practicing TM?
