--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > > Vaj wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:21 PM, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > > >> Well in my opinion I would have to say that death is > >> > >> a permanent cessation of all vital functions, basically the end of > >> life. > >> > >> I'm pretty much conventional about your basic run of the mill > >> maeaning of death. For instance in my opinion,Michael Jackson is dead. > >> > >> I'm sure many here would disagree with my opinion, but I'm holding > >> to fast to this. > >> > > > > > > Consider this: one of the possible explanations given by Christian > > theologians for the "resurrection" of Jesus of Nazareth is the so- > > called "swoon theory". IOW, he wasn't dead and simply later revived a > > couple days later. Occam's razor would have us take a more reasonable > > answer, like this kid was merely passed out for whatever reason. > > Traditional Hindus are often extraordinarily superstitious people, > > they go the opposite direction from commonsense answers. > > > > Also, wasn't this bio written by the McRishi's uncle? How reliable of > > a person was he? It seems clear he was a TB in Sw. Brahmananda, et al-- > > not exactly a reliable witness most likely. > Bringing a dead body to life would be a variation on one of the tantric > siddhis or "tests" that takes place in the cremation ground. There the > tantric sits on the dead body and through transmitting shakti brings it > to life. Of course I've never done this but know people who claim to. > But supposedly the body comes to life but also often tries to strangle > the person sitting on it at which time there is a technique to put it > back to its dead state. It isn't necessary a large jump to think that > shakti might be able to bring a dead person (or animal) back to life but > I would expect that with some much dead tissue they would probably > react mindlessly like a zombie and hence why they might "appear" to > strangle the tantric. It would be a "test" to show that one has > achieved an ability to transmit an immense amount of shakti. > > I would also think that the boy would have been more like a zombie and > not worth it to the parents to be in that state of life. I can't > imagine that state of animation to last long either (another good reason > to skip town). > > One of my Indian astrology teachers referred to this as a "trick" but > didn't elaborate on how it was a trick or how it was performed. >
Your description sounds like a half-assed failure by an irresponsible, inept huckster who really DOES have a serious lack of complete development. I truly doubt that Guru Dev's master was such an incompetent dolt. If he did restore the boy to life, I'm sure he restored him to his normal state. I'm really amazed at some of the people here, especially those who claim such extensive learning in these areas, who can't seem to accept that such things can indeed be done properly by fully developed God-realized beings. It's as if you don't have a remote clue who and what God is, or of the potential implications of -genuine- spiritual union with God. And you certainly completely miss the concept of "The Whole Thing The Real Thing." I think, for the most part on this forum, that view is a reflection of the standard TMO line that appeals to even hardcore atheists, that contact with the attributeless Absolute -alone- is sufficient for complete spiritual development. Paramatma [God] is either completely left out of the picture, or is relegated to the status of unimportant superstitious hokum for the ignorant.
