banality of miracles
Bon Giovanni
Sai Ram
*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*+*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*
Small minds select narrow roads; expand your mental vision and take to
the broad road of helpfulness, compassion and service.
-Sri Sathya Sai Baba
Miracles, the Baha'i say, are useful evidence only to those who witness them.
I tend to concur. Those who speak of miracles as being valid or fraud,
without having witnessed the event, are at best hopeful, or perhaps like
to chat.
In this thread was mentioned `plaster statues drinking milk.' That is
a convenient slough, since some statues of Ganesha that did drink milk
were plaster, but others were metal, (others were stone). Certainly
I did see some occasions where milk was clearly not drunk, but more or
less poured, and the milk running down the belly of the icon was obvious.
However, I did see a metal statue `drink' milk, and I watched it happen
again and again. No milk ran down the figure, and none appeared at the base.
I also saw a solid stone statue `drink' milk, and there was no evidence of
fraud or deception.
Since I saw that, I speak of it. Those who speak of things they have not
seen for themselves, may be True Believers, or gossips, or... what-
certainly not skeptics, since skeptics would not depend on hearsay to
base an opinion, surely.
All best wishes
*+*
http://www.inside-info.co.uk./BABA/bon.htm
--
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Whatever a fine person does, so will others do; people effect behaviour
by example. - Bhagavad Gita 3:21
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Brian R. Oldham
In article <169744383...@earthspirit.org>, Bon Giovanni (Bon_Gi...@earthspirit.org) writes:
>
[snip]
>
>However, I did see a metal statue `drink' milk, and I watched it happen
>again and again. No milk ran down the figure, and none appeared at the base.
>I also saw a solid stone statue `drink' milk, and there was no evidence of
>fraud or deception.
>
---
Brian Oldham
Hucknall UK
!...Gesundbrunnen
Geoff Lane
: >
: [snip]
: >
: >However, I did see a metal statue `drink' milk, and I watched it happen
: >again and again. No milk ran down the figure, and none appeared at the base.
: >I also saw a solid stone statue `drink' milk, and there was no evidence of
: >fraud or deception.
If you dribble plain water onto almost any "solid stone statue" it will be
absorbed. "solid stone" is anything but solid.
It would be interested to see the same effect on a glass or metal statue.
--
Geoff. Lane. http://cs6400.mcc.ac.uk/~zzassgl/
"Kryten, unpack Rachel and get out the puncture repair kit. I'm ALIVE!!!!!"
Bon Giovanni
Sai Ram
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Pardon, I thought you might have read the article before replying...
(A poster offers how he would like to see the milk taken by a metal statue.
Er, yes, I suggest that is so.)
I did detail that I saw that very event. Of course, that is not the same as
seeing it for yourself. Without personal
experience, little in spiritual life makes for good conversation.
*+*
Bon Giovanni
Sai Ram
*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*+*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*
Small minds select narrow roads; expand your mental vision and take to
the broad road of helpfulness, compassion and service.
-Sri Sathya Sai Baba
Brian reads that I saw some icons `drink' milk, and then asks what I was
drinking.
Well said.
I take no intoxicants; none. I find that clarity of perception and
intuition makes me quite the drunkard in comparison with the staid
Rumi-free world of doubters.
hick
Bon Giovanni
*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*+*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*
Sai Ram
*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*+*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*
Small minds select narrow roads; expand your mental vision and take to
the broad road of helpfulness, compassion and service.
-Sri Sathya Sai Baba
In a previous article, jfr (Jim Rogers) says:
>Why would it occur to anyone to try to feed a statue of Ganesha milk in the
>first place? Have you seen anyone try to feed Shiva milk? Has anyone tried
>to feed the statue ink? Why milk, and why Ganesha, and why play with iconic
>symbols in the first place?
I suggest that part and parcel of being skeptical, is to examine without
presupposition. That involves some research, and some study too. For example
Jim wonders what that is all abut with milk and Ganesha. Perhaps were he
to do some study of Hinduism, and of Ganesha his queries would reach
satisfactory conclusion. Ganesha represents the intellect's ability
to focus in concentration: to pay attention. Milk represents the
purified sensory input that leads to clarity that leads to wisdom.
These icons are symbols. Symbols require understanding, as Jim might
develop were he to study them.
Why not offer Ganesha ink?
To a Hindu, his question sound like:
"Why does a mother not offer her babe ink?, and who ever thought
of putting a breast in a baby's mouth!"
(Jim sounds silly.)
Geoff offers: "In *all* reports of the event within the UK it was
*only* stone statues that displayed the effect. Later tests on statues
from the same source (but not installed within a temple) displayed the
effect and it was easily demonstrated that the milk and water was being
drawn into the stone and flowing through it to be drained from the base
by ordinary and obvious physical means."
Odd, others here from th UK have said it was `only plaster statues.' Each
seems to recall different material and reports. That must have been very
interesting. Too, whoever `tested' might want to examine the hpothesis
that `all' statues in the UK come from `one' source. Also, it does sound
like someone simply got a stone statue, installed a pipe and siphoned off
some liquid, then proudly announced "you see!"
I am guessing of course, since Geoff gave no details. Still, should any
now present any report from the UK about any statue other than stone, his
thesis ends. Why? why because he said ALL statues were stone. So if I show
any report showing not all statues were stone, his thesis is shown to be
erroneous from the getgo.
But the most striking claim Geoff makes is that `statues from the same
source' were obtained- as if every stone Ganesh statue in every Hindu
temple and household in the UK was purchased from one shop. I suggest that
shows Geoff is exaggerating.
I also am leary of the claim that ALL stone statues in ALL Hindu
temples are in some wise `hollow.' I have first hand knowledge that
the stone Ganesh in the Malibou temple is solid.
Lastly: Geoff does not say how he came by any of that data. Was it
via firsthand or print, telly, hearsay, ouija board, what?
Please, be skeptical: demand specifics.
Thanks
*+*
http://www.inside-info.co.uk/BABA/bon.htm
--
*%*%*%*%*%%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
When wisdom enters the heart, and knowledge is pleasant to the soul;
Discretion shall preserve you, understanding shall keep you: Pr 2:10,11
*%*%*%*%*%%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Bon Giovanni
&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%*+*%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&
Sai Ram
&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%*+*%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&
Though its colour be not deep and its smell
be faint, use this flower in thy service and
pluck it while there is time.
-Tagore
It has been asked:
But why was milk offered to statues anyway-
why not ink?
Ganesha represents the clarified intellect- the ability to focus and
pay attention. He was created by Nature, but transformed by Divinity.
Milk represents purified sensory input. When the focused intellect
feeds on direct apperception, wisdom arises.
As for ink,
does the mother feed ink to her babe?
Jim Rogers
...
> It has been asked:
> But why was milk offered to statues anyway-
> why not ink?
>
> Ganesha represents the clarified intellect- the ability to focus and
> pay attention. He was created by Nature, but transformed by Divinity.
> Milk represents purified sensory input. When the focused intellect
> feeds on direct apperception, wisdom arises.
>
> As for ink,
> does the mother feed ink to her babe?
I can understand why you wouldn't want to try this to Ganesha, out of
reverence, but would you be willing to do such a test on a similarly made
statue of a different figure?
If not, it bespeaks a willingness to turn away from the truth. I'm not about
to accept that this is a unique property of Ganesha with what's been told so
far; all we know is that Hindus feed Ganesha statues milk, but there is
absolutely no data on attempted variations.
Jim
Brian R. Oldham
In article <1996Feb7.1...@lafn.org>, Bon Giovanni (aq...@lafn.org) writes:
>
>
>In a previous article, jfr (Jim Rogers) says:
>
>>Why would it occur to anyone to try to feed a statue of Ganesha milk in the
>>first place? Have you seen anyone try to feed Shiva milk? Has anyone tried
>>to feed the statue ink? Why milk, and why Ganesha, and why play with iconic
>>symbols in the first place?
>
>I suggest that part and parcel of being skeptical, is to examine without
>presupposition. That involves some research, and some study too. For example
>Jim wonders what that is all abut with milk and Ganesha. Perhaps were he
>to do some study of Hinduism, and of Ganesha his queries would reach
>satisfactory conclusion. Ganesha represents the intellect's ability
>to focus in concentration: to pay attention. Milk represents the
>purified sensory input that leads to clarity that leads to wisdom.
>
I wonder why Bon is trying so hard to sell, in sci.skeptic of all
places, the belief that stone statues can "drink" milk.
I mean, come on. I'm not a total disbeliever when it comes to anomalous
phenomena; I can accept that UFOs really exist and I am convinced of
the reality of PSI. I will defend to the best of my ability the
right and the duty of the investigative researcher to present his case
to the skeptical group without being castigated for trying. But I am not
gullible. Bon, you are not talking science here; you are talking
religion and, apparently, specifically Hinduism.
>
>Please, be skeptical: demand specifics.
You demand that we respond in the spirit of scepticism and do some study
of Hinduism. WHY? Will a study of Hinduism further the cause of
science? Do you think that even parapsychology would learn from
watching icons drink milk?
You ask us to demand specifics: Then please break this statement
down into scientific terms that we can understand:
>............... Milk represents the
>purified sensory input that leads to clarity that leads to wisdom.
I doubt if you can do it because it reduces to sheer mysticism.
You clearly know the correct meaning of the word "scepticism" and you
are quick to demand that others adhere to it's principles, yet you have
the effrontery to do this from within a religious faith. In my book
that is sheer hypocrisy.
Bon Giovanni
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*+*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
Sai Ram
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*+*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
A man ought to live in this world like a lotus
leaf, which grows in water but is never moistened
by the water; so a man ought to live in this world-
his heart connected to God and his hands to work.
-anon
I did not begin this thread about Hindu idols taking milk. I did reply
to comments and to queries from others. Now Brian R. Oldham ponders:
>I wonder why Bon is trying so hard to sell, in sci.skeptic of all
>places, the belief that stone statues can "drink" milk.
If Brian wonders, let him ask. For now I can but wonder what thread
Brian has been reading, since I am not doing anything like what he
addresses. I am not `selling'; I saw this thread, and reported on what
I had observed first hand. I also explained (in reply to a question)
that in this case Milk represents the purified sensory input that leads
to clarity that leads to wisdom. One could find that out oneself, were
one to study Hinduism. The phenomonon under discussion is after all
a Hindu event.
Now Brian advises my view is a mite too `mystical' for his taste, and
says my response shows I am being hypocritical.
Yipes. Hypocrite has but one meaning, and so I regard his accusation at
face value, but the word "mystical" is used in various ways. What could
Brian mean? One meaning is occult, fantastic, magical, non-rational,
non-scientific, etc. A second meaning is that of the direct experience
of Ultimate Reality (also called "God").
Whichever meaning he choosed, Brian might find the issue in this thread
was mystical *before* I joined the discussion. Thus, I suggest it was
not hypocritical of me to address the issue as it was presented.
But hey, that is my opinion. Brian has expressed his. Still, if he
only wishes to praise or denigrate my character, private email might be
better... in which case I suggest he send his comments to those who
care what he thinks of Bon.
That would exclude me.
Thanks for your attention.
Bon Giovanni
&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%*+*%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&
Sai Ram
&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%*+*%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&%&
Thou hast made me endless, such is thy pleasure.
This frail vessel thou emptiest again and again,
and fillest it ever with fresh life.
-Gitanjali
Jim Rogers read my remarks about the symbology of milk and says:
"I can understand why you wouldn't want to try this to Ganesha, out of
reverence, but would you be willing to do such a test on a similarly
made statue of a different figure?"
Me? Thanks Jim, but I suggest you are the one who should do the test.
Why? Why because I am not the one who doubts, nor did I instigate this
thread. Frankly I do not care if any statue takes milk now or not. I
nose what I seed, and said so. For me that is sufficient. Should it not
be sufficient for you, why by all means `run tests.'
Whoever wishes can offer milk or ink or mercury or any fluid to any
statue, as you wish. However, if you really want to duplicate the
situation, as a scientist, then I do suggest the test be done on an
idol in a temple by a priest who worships whatever statue you choose,
rather than having some twit just walk up to a piece of rock or metal
or plaster shaped like Micky Mouse and say OK DRINK THIS! Otherwise,
the test is not duplicating the phenomena in any but the most
superficial appearance.
If you doubt, and yet will not perform the experiment so as to match
the SPECIFICS of the reported phenomena, it may (as Jim says) "bespeak
a willingness to turn away from the truth." Do as you wish, I don't
care either way.
I reported on what I saw myself: a metal Ganesh took milk, and none ran
down the sides, and none appeared on the base. I also saw a marble
Ganesh, but it would take milk only from the pujari (the priest.)
Let Jim therefore take his `challenge' where it applies, which is not
to me. (In my view the challenge is for those who have interest in
proving or disproving such things).
While I do not care what folks do with their statues, I will however
remind readers that the phenomenon stopped as quickly as it started. To
me that is as remarkable as when the statue drank milk!
In the Hindu temple where I saw the metal statue take milk, the
caretakers were very humble. However, the trustees (who are well to
do), decided they had a big comeon with their marble idol taking milk
from their pujari, and so took out an ad in the Los Angeles Times, (to
get more attention and donations I suppose). At that point, their
statue of Ganesh (which was white marble) had been drinking milk for
four days, while in India, most of the statues had stopped. The
morning the ad came out in Los Angeles, the marble temple statue
stopped drinking milk. To me the fact that the statue STOPPED drinking
when it was advertised for mundane reasons, was just as impressive as
when it began to drink for spiritual reasons...
I thought that showed a certain divine sense of humour, and timing.
Jim Rogers
...
>Jim Rogers read my remarks about the symbology of milk and says:
>
>>"I can understand why you wouldn't want to try this to Ganesha, out of
>>reverence, but would you be willing to do such a test on a similarly
>>made statue of a different figure?"
>
>Me? Thanks Jim, but I suggest you are the one who should do the test.
>Why? Why because I am not the one who doubts, nor did I instigate this
>thread. Frankly I do not care if any statue takes milk now or not. I
>nose what I seed, and said so. For me that is sufficient. Should it not
>be sufficient for you, why by all means `run tests.'
(English lesson: "I know what I saw" is what you meant to write)
This is exactly why I asked. I have no reason to believe it to be at
all remarkable that statues of Ganesha can absorb milk from a spoon.
You think it is remarkable, and what you've already seen "is
sufficient." I have no need to test it because nothing has been
presented to make me even suspect that this is remarkable. So I ask
you, if I were to run such a test as you suggest, would you be at all
interested in the results? From your above remarks, you are already
sufficiently satisfied, so your answer would probably be "no." In
that case, testing would be entirely pointless, wouldn't it? Why
should I waste my time if you won't hear the results?
>Whoever wishes can offer milk or ink or mercury or any fluid to any
>statue, as you wish. However, if you really want to duplicate the
>situation, as a scientist, then I do suggest the test be done on an
>idol in a temple by a priest who worships whatever statue you choose,
>rather than having some twit just walk up to a piece of rock or metal
>or plaster shaped like Micky Mouse and say OK DRINK THIS! Otherwise,
>the test is not duplicating the phenomena in any but the most
>superficial appearance.
But you already explained the problem of the reverant doing any such
thing, so we shouldn't ask them to try. But if "some twit" were to just
walk up to a similarly-made piece of rock or plaster shaped like
Mickey Mouse and gets it to "drink" a spoonful of ink, wouldn't that be
significant to you? It would show to me that temples are not necessary,
priests are not necessary, milk is not necessary, and Ganesha is not
necessary in order to manifest an effect.
>If you doubt, and yet will not perform the experiment so as to match
>the SPECIFICS of the reported phenomena, it may (as Jim says) "bespeak
>a willingness to turn away from the truth." Do as you wish, I don't
>care either way.
See above. It would rule out all of the SPECIFICS you claim as
necessary conditions. That would go much farther than necessary. Now
if such a test were to fail, on the other hand, one could start adding
back each specific condition one at a time in order to see which are
necessary to show the effect.
>I reported on what I saw myself: a metal Ganesh took milk, and none ran
>down the sides, and none appeared on the base. I also saw a marble
>Ganesh, but it would take milk only from the pujari (the priest.)
Sleight of hand, perhaps? A pin-hole near the mouth leading to an
internal cavity?
>Let Jim therefore take his `challenge' where it applies, which is not
>to me. (In my view the challenge is for those who have interest in
>proving or disproving such things).
I, too, am already satisfied. Why should I change my mind merely on
your word about what you saw? This is "sci.skeptic," not
alt.religion.hindu. We expect a bit more than your astonishment here.
>While I do not care what folks do with their statues, I will however
>remind readers that the phenomenon stopped as quickly as it started. To
>me that is as remarkable as when the statue drank milk!
Saturation, perhaps?
>In the Hindu temple where I saw the metal statue take milk, the
>caretakers were very humble. However, the trustees (who are well to
>do), decided they had a big comeon with their marble idol taking milk
>from their pujari, and so took out an ad in the Los Angeles Times, (to
>get more attention and donations I suppose). At that point, their
>statue of Ganesh (which was white marble) had been drinking milk for
>four days, while in India, most of the statues had stopped. The
>morning the ad came out in Los Angeles, the marble temple statue
>stopped drinking milk. To me the fact that the statue STOPPED drinking
>when it was advertised for mundane reasons, was just as impressive as
>when it began to drink for spiritual reasons...
>
>I thought that showed a certain divine sense of humour, and timing.
"Your mileage may vary."
Jim
Bon Giovanni
Sai Ram
*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*+*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*
came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared
against him.
-Jud 14:5
Jim suggests that metal or stone statues drink milk, only until they
are `saturated.'
Is that what you said, Jim?
Er, you mean, like a sponge?
I have never come across metal or stone items that `absorb' liquids
to a saturation point, so frankly wonder what items you are alluding to.
Frankly you seem to have far more interest in this subject than I do,
even though you did not see any of the events you theorize about, and I
did see such an event: a metal statue drank milk. A stone statue took
milk.
You have suggested various tubes pipes and apparent sponge like qualities
to explain this, but since you never saw it, why attempt any explanation at
all? To me it seems you are just looking for something to chat about, instead
of chatting about something you have experienced.
Pardon, but your method seems to me sort of a waste of time. I prefer to
talk about what I experience, not theorize over what I have not experienced.
If that offends, I apologize. It works for me.
All best wishes
*+*
http://www.inside-info.co.uk./BABA/bon.htm
Jim Rogers
>are `saturated.'
>
>Is that what you said, Jim?
>
>Er, you mean, like a sponge?
Yes, or an internal cavity, or sleight of hand.
>I have never come across metal or stone items that `absorb' liquids
>to a saturation point, so frankly wonder what items you are alluding to.
>Frankly you seem to have far more interest in this subject than I do,
>even though you did not see any of the events you theorize about, and I
>did see such an event: a metal statue drank milk. A stone statue took
>milk.
>
>You have suggested various tubes pipes and apparent sponge like qualities
>to explain this, but since you never saw it, why attempt any explanation at
>all? To me it seems you are just looking for something to chat about, instead
>of chatting about something you have experienced.
Just offering suggestions about what mundane thing it *could* be, as
avenues of investigation for those interested. I also suggested sleight
of hand by the priest for the "non-absorbent" statues, which may have
begun after they'd learned about plaster statues drinking milk.
>Pardon, but your method seems to me sort of a waste of time. I prefer to
>talk about what I experience, not theorize over what I have not experienced.
>If that offends, I apologize. It works for me.
If it works for you and you have no need to find out the truth, then
there is nothing more to talk about. Take it to a religious newsgroup.
Jim
Bon Giovanni
____ __ ___ ____ __ _ _
/ ___) / \ ( )| _ \ / \ | \ / |
\___ \ | <> | | | | - / | <> | | \\// |
(____/ |_||_|(___)|_|\_\ |_||_| |_|\/|_|
Though its colour be not deep and its smell
be faint, use this flower in thy service and
pluck it while there is time.
-Tagore
Joining this thread, I related how I did see a metal statue `drink' milk,
and I watched it happen again and again. No milk ran down the figure, and
none appeared at the base. I also saw a solid stone statue `drink' milk,
and there was no evidence of fraud or deception.
As if in reply, zza...@cs6400.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) says
>If you dribble plain water onto almost any "solid stone statue" it will be
>absorbed. "solid stone" is anything but solid.
Nothing is solid in onesense, but certainly stone does NOT absorb water
before one's eyes as if spongelike. Or has Geoff seen that?
>It would be interested to see the same effect on a glass or metal statue.
That is why I said AS IF in reply: I did relate that a metal statue drank
milk. Unlike Geoff I did not talk abuot dribbles, but about drinking.
Unlike Geoff I do not know of any stone one can dribble liquid on and `it
will be absorbed.'
Ah but perhaps Geoff has done that experiment? Was it perhaps on
foolstone?
*+*
Brian R. Oldham
Bon Writes:
>Jim suggests that metal or stone statues drink milk, only until they
>are `saturated.'
>
>Is that what you said, Jim?
>
>Er, you mean, like a sponge?
>
>to a saturation point, so frankly wonder what items you are alluding to.
>Frankly you seem to have far more interest in this subject than I do,
>even though you did not see any of the events you theorize about, and I
>did see such an event: a metal statue drank milk. A stone statue took
>milk.
>
>You have suggested various tubes pipes and apparent sponge like qualities
>to explain this, but since you never saw it, why attempt any explanation at
>all? To me it seems you are just looking for something to chat about, instead
>of chatting about something you have experienced.
>
But is that not the entire purpose (Raison d'Etre) of the Usenet
newsgroups? Is sci.skeptic not a debating forum? You may not have
initiated this thread Bon, but you have entered into it with the
(repeated) claim that you have seen stone statues drink milk.
You offer no explanation that I or Jim or any other skeptic would be
prepared to accept, beyond suggestions of divine intervention, and you
protest when you are challenged. FYI that is par for the course in
sci.skeptic. As they say: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the
kitchen.
>Pardon, but your method seems to me sort of a waste of time. I prefer to
>talk about what I experience, not theorize over what I have not experienced.
>If that offends, I apologize. It works for me.
>
I prefer...? ...works for me? You are being uniquely selfish if I may
say so. It does offend, as you have anticipated. But I (we) will accept
your apology.
Your move...