Curtis, without snipping any of your post (below) or spending a whole lot more time or words on the subject, it seems pretty clear that Guru Dev, himself, believed in siddhis and miracles, as is obvious from Paul Mason's site with quotes from him exactly on that subject, as well as the bios of him which are allegedly based on stories he told himself. In "The Whole Thing, The Real Thing" he claims his guru, Swamiji Krishnanad, raised a boy from the dead and there's also the story of the Aghori Mahatma who put on the spectacular diorama of the divinities (as well as a deluge of blood and bones) for Guru Dev's benefit while Guru Dev was doing sadhana in some jungle somewhere.
And the Indian teachers and gurus I've read (Yogananda immediately comes to mind), all presume the miraculous as being part and parcel of enlightened life. So it doesn't seem odd or particularly perfidious on Brahmachari Mahesh's part to make such claims about Guru Dev, whether or not Guru Dev himself claimed to possess them. Basically, the belief in siddhis are part of the Indian culture and as such, even a person of integrity and prudence, steeped in that culture, would accept as true the reality of miracles that have no empirical proof to substantiate them. It's just a way of looking at the world. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just in case you are not already sick of this topic... > > I think I understand your point of view. Sounds reasonable. I also > understand that you don't find my take on it reasonable. Fair enough. > It was my reaction to the wording of MMY's announcement about Guru > Dev that changed my view of him from "stodgy old time religion guy" to > more of a self promoter using miracles as a hook. But our discussion > has definitely bought out a need to find out what specific miracles > MMY claimed for GD. In any case I have addressed some points you felt > I had missed. FWIW. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > As an aside, the tradition of the day was to > > deliver a kid to an adult teacher to take care of > > him. Letting him walk off was just as much an > > aberration of parental responsibility as it is today. > > Judy If there was anything they could have done > about it, that is. If they'd handed him over > to a teacher, and the kid didn't find him > congenial, he'd most likely have walked away > from the teacher. > > ME Buzzzzz ! Sorry, the correct parenting answer was to take care of > your underage child. No one gets off the hook by claiming that kids > can walk away. Good parents don't let them, no exceptions. Rich ones > get even less slack. They could have hired a shadow person to follow > GD around everywhere for about 2 cents a day. > > <snip> > [I wrote:] > > MMY, as I said, didn't imply any particular miracle > > in that particular piece. In the other piece you > > just quoted, he made a general pro forma reference, > > pretty much de rigeur for a realized Indian master. > > > > When you hear someone introduce a candidate for > > office as "The next president of the United States," > > and the candidate then loses the election, do you > > then say to yourself, "That scoundrel who introduced > > the candidate before the election was lying"? > > > > I'm not sure where you got the idea about how > > realized people get introduced, ever been to India? > > Judy; No, but I've read plenty of testimonials > about purportedly realized teachers. > > ME; I am not challenging your familiarity with spiritual people, just > how they get introduced. You are claiming that it was common to > mention a teacher's siddhis in his intro. I maintain that only crass > teachers would use it. It is hokey spirituality. > > Ever seen another supposedly realized > > guy get introduced? This is a made up perspective. > > It is just as likely that mentioning Sidhis is just > > as tacky for religious people in India as here. > > Remember he was representing a high formal office. > > Judy: I should think that would make claims for siddhis-- > especially such siddhis as omniscience--even more > appropriate. > > > My Indian friends here view sidhis claims as > > ludicrously as we view the healing claims of > > televangelists. > > ME: I wouldn't doubt it, but isn't that a bit of a > self-selected sample? How likely is it that > Indians who took such claims for granted would > be those you would make friends with in the > first place? > > Judy: They are self-selected because the most pious Indians won't > leave the country. My point was that their culture makes the same > distinctions we do concerning televangelists and serious spiritual > people. Claiming miracles is an indication of slippery intent in both > cultures. I have plenty of religious and spiritually minded friends > who still view making claims of miracles as a televangelist trick to > bamboozle naive people. I don't sort friends by beliefs but by behavior. > > Also, this promotion of Guru Dev took place > decades earlier than your sojourns in India, > not that long after India won its independence > from the British. It's not impossible that > modern skepticism about such things was a lot > less common back then. > > ME: Very possible. > > > The closer example would be Benny Hin's claims of > > curing cancer being met with the appropriate skepticism. > > Claiming unproven miracles to market spirituality is > > crass and deserves to be ridiculed. > > That may be, but the issue here is whether MMY > actually made such claims, as opposed to a pro > forma statement, as I said, about unspecified > abilities. > > <snip> > > Your example about the candidate has nothing to do with > > this. MMY is not claiming what he will become in the > > future, he is claiming it is true now. > > Judy: It isn't a perfect analogy, but it makes the > point. It's the same type of pro forma claim. > It's expected, a formula. If the candidate weren't > introduced that way, you'd wonder why not. > > ME: I don't think you know if this is a pro forma claim in Indian > culture at any time. It puts him in the Sai Baba camp of people using > miracle claims to enhance their image. We are left with our differing > opinions without all the facts. You see his making miracle claims as > not big deal. I view it as a character issue. > > Claiming that a > > person is God's gift to India is exaggeration for effect. > > Claiming miracles to influence superstitions people > > is MMY being P.T. Barnum. > > Judy: But *he didn't claim any miracles*, Curtis. > He made a generalized claim about unspecified > abilities. In India, that would be equivalent > to claiming George Bush was appointed by God > to lead the nation. An awful lot of people > believed that (fewer now, but only because Bush > has messed up so badly--he may be the only > person left who still believes it). > > It was exaggeration for effect (assuming MMY > didn't actually believe it--for pete's sake, > some TMers believe MMY himself can do "miracles"). > > ME: MMY would never support your characterization of his statements > about Guru Dev as exaggeration for effect. This perspective is just > an attempt to get him off the hook for his wild claims which I believe > were false. There is more to uncover about what MMY actually did and > didn't make up about Guru Dev to promote him as the Michael Jordan of > spiritual guys. MMY's sincerity of his belief concerning Guru Devs > actual miraculous abilities is not known. > > > > > I'm gunna go with the assumption that the young, > > > endlessly ambitious MMY promoted the story to make > > > GD look like a the rock star of yogis. > > > > Yeah, very scientific of you to make this > > assumption for which there is no evidence. > > > > The epistemology in the scientific method is not > > the right proof system for historical opinions. > > Not a matter of "proof" but of the sort of > rigorous thinking required in science. > > > Here consistency of behavior carries > > more weight since we lack clear evidence. MMY is a > > known exaggerator and has promised non existent > > miracles as recently as his presentation of the > > sidhis. > > Judy: *So far* nonexistent. On what basis are you so > sure that MMY has never believed they would take > place eventually? > > Me: So if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt so much? MMY > sent his new "flyers" to MIU to tell us that they WERE flying, not > hopping. What he believed about what would happen some day has > nothing to do with his deliberate misinformation about the sidhis > claiming that people where floating in the air and not just hopping. > If I tell you I have a million dollars, I am lying even if someday in > the future I get that money. > > > is no big jump to say that the writer of the PR > > puff piece might be making up miracle stories to > > increase hype. > > Judy: BUT HE DIDN'T MAKE UP ANY MIRACLE STORIES, Curtis. > That's a story *you* made up > > Me: He doesn't mention them by name in that piece but he uses the > claim of them as part of his "Guru Dev is so special" pitch. We don't > know what specific stories MMY made up about Guru Dev. All we know is > that in this promo piece he refers to them and uses them to build > specialness credibility. Without super powers Guru Dev is just a > super camper. And that doesn't seem to warrant his "His Divinity" > title. Think of all the other claims MMY could have made about Guru > Dev's knowledge or ability to explain the scriptures. But no, MMY > uses a claim of magic powers. I'm sure we can find out some place > where MMY mentions them, I'll keep digging. I smell smoke. I didn't > make up anything, MMY claims miracles plain as day. My bias is that > Guru Dev didn't actually perform miracles, so I conclude that MMY was > lying. That doesn't mean that no one can do magic things, just that I > don't have any evidence other than MMY's assertion that Guru Dev had > any. Since I have heard MMY lie through his teeth repeatedly I am not > taking his word on this. > > If you start with an assumption that Guru Dev did in fact have magic > powers then your conclusions will differ concerning MMY's credibility. > But trying to pawn off his assertions as just the usual standard > build up for a saint doesn't ring true for me. > > > > Your thinking is so very rigid when it suits > > your purposes, and so very flexible when that > > works better for you. > > > > Agreed. It has taken me years of self development > > to achieve this. > > Judy: And you're *proud* of insisting on the evidence > when it confirms your beliefs and ignoring it > when it doesn't?? > > Me: I don't see how trying to characterize my thinking process in a > negative way advances our discussion Judy. I am not soliciting your > help in my general thinking style. As far as this discussion goes, we > are both choosing what we are paying attention to in the piece. That > is one of the reasons we are coming to different conclusions. That, > in my mind, is a good thing. I accept that I am offering my > opinionated POV. But it is just as valid as the one your are offering > considering the facts that we both have from this piece. So far I > appreciate the points you have made and also disagree with your > conclusions. It has nothing to do with either of our abilities to > think about topics in a careful manor. > > > > BTW what is the SCI view on the mechanics of penances > > > in gaining magical powers? > > > > Non sequitur. > > > > It was a secondary point I was bringing up. MMY is > > claiming that Guru Dev did penances to achieve magical > > powers. > > More than one way to skin a cat, perhaps. > > > I appreciate the discussion. Thanks. > > Judy: And I note you're *still* choosing to ignore > these points: > > ME: OK > > Judy: > And I note you chose to ignore these points: > > > > > > It's perfectly plausible that Guru Dev had a > > > > source of funds other than donations from > > > > disciples and visitors--even, perhaps, his own > > > > inheritance, as Marek suggested; or some major > > > > behind-the-scenes donors who weren't "disciples" > > > > strictly speaking. > > Me: I understand the theory that his parents had the kind of personal > fortune that would support a Math. It is pure speculation. I also > think it is unlikely due to the extent of the fortune necessary. But > it is possible. > > Your behind-the-scenes donors who weren't "disciples" sounds > interesting. Sounds a little Bill Clintonesque. So MMY was making a > claim that no "disciples" money was taken based on a technicality > about the status of the person who gave the money as a "non disciple"? > So legally speaking there was a distinction that could be made that > narrowly differentiates their status and based on that MMY can claim > that no "disciple" gave the money? OK That sounds like the kind of > thing MMY would do. All this is possible. So if the spiritual > element is taken away as a motive to fork over large amounts of cash > what do we have left as a human motivation? Sex? Not likely. > Monetary gain? In Hong Kong the Fung Shui masters get paid to inspect > building projects and say yes or no. It is a huge racket. I guess it > is also possible that Guru Dev and MMY had a racket going about > blessing shopping malls and buildings which Jerry Jarvis told me was > part of his job description. Perhaps this giving or withholding of > blessings was worth a chunk of change. This is all speculation like > the thought that there was a person who was not a disciple who was > willing to give huge amounts of money. > > Judy:> <snip> > > > > In a publicity piece like this, MMY isn't going > > > > to go into the intricacies of funding the math; > > > > all he's trying to do is encourage people to > > > > come hear Guru Dev, including poor people who > > > > might not otherwise attend because they > > > > couldn't afford the donation they assumed would > > > > be expected of them. > > ME: When I saw the Shankaracharya in India he fed the poor people > prasad. No donation was expected for poor people. I agree that he > wouldn't go into the funding details in a PR piece. I was speculating > why he felt that this distinction was important enough to make Guru > Dev different from all other saints. It is a key part of his > credibility build up. > > I think I need to dig deeper into MMY's early writing to find out what > specific miracles he was claiming for Guru Dev. We are running out of > perspectives with the facts as we have them. I am enjoying discussing > this in detail, thanks. >
