--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Barry wrote:] > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <groups@> wrote: > > > > > > on 9/5/06 10:58 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > >> > Not quite a parallel, Jim. Every time I have > > > >> > described this, I have made it very clear that > > > >> > it was my perception that he levitated. I saw > > > >> > this hundreds of times over many years. But if > > > >> > you'll check, both in my book and any time I > > > >> > have ever mentioned it here, I have always been > > > >> > careful to say that I don't know whether video > > > >> > cameras would have recorded it. > > > > > > Didn¹t he ever have video cameras there? If not, why not? > > > > Nope. I don't know, but my suspicion is that he didn't > > believe that certain siddhis -- like invisibility and > > levitation -- actually happened on the gross physical > > level. > > Actually, for hugheshugo's benefit, I was wrong > in this old quote. I've since heard tapes that > indicate that he didn't believe that at all. That > was my "take" on what I thought he might have > believed when I wrote the original post, but the > tape indicates that it wasn't what he said he > believed. > > According to the tape, he didn't "do video" > because he felt the "field effect" of being > physically present when siddhis are performed > was important for the students. His theory was > that if you see a photo or video of some siddhi, > and there is no physical proximity to it, it's > just seeing a photo or watching a video. But > when you're *there*, sitting in the energy field > generated by some siddhis, it's quite a different > experience, and has more of an effect on the level > of the "breaking boundaries" thing I was speaking > about earlier. > > Since that was his only stated reason for doing > them -- to help students break boundaries -- he > said on this tape that he didn't think video would > be worth doing. It wouldn't convince anyone who > wasn't physically there, and witnessing the phen- > omenon *only* does any good for someone who's > physically there. > > But, for Judy, don't let that stop your "research."
Actually that *was* my research. The point, from which you're attempting to distract attention, is that you claimed that "every time" you described this, you added that you didn't know whether it would have shown up on videotape. You "forgot" this time, and I was just reminding you. What Lenz had in mind is, of course, irrelevant. > Have you ever noticed that you seem to feel the > need to get...uh...scholarly, and "do research" > on me or Vaj, whenever we mention some spiritual > phenomenon that isn't likely to ever happen in > TM circles? > > It's probably just a coincidence... :-) Well, no, actually it's not a "coincidence" because it isn't even a fact, it's another of your Judy-fantasies. > By the way, Jude, that's 18 posts in under a day > and a half. Aren't you glad that you don't have > any problems with compulsive posting? Because if > you did, at this rate your next "long weekend" > would probably have to start on Tuesday. :-) My next long weekend starts toward the end of the week, actually. But I'm not going to tell you what day, because I so enjoy watching you obsessively count my posts, wondering when you're next going to be able to post another of your elaborate fantasies without my immediately pointing out that you've made it up.
