E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: Jed Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: June 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
From JGeyerhahn@aol.com Sat May 31 00:36:15 1997
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 03:35:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Dave, you're gonna love it, Sorry Bon
Ok Bon. I have finally found some patience to actually analyze your letters.
Beware, I am charged up. I have not seen propaganda like this since being a
Sai Devotee, and it is truly a test of my own faith to pay it any esteem. I
have only taken notes on the first 2/3 of the first letter, and that seems
enough to me to really show your own devotion to truth.
Bon makes a sort of sweeping generalisation in the beginning of this
letter that he often accuses me of, but I will try to agree with him for the
sake of debate and allow that "the whole purpose of spiritual disiplines in
all religions: (is) to learn to clear the intellect and intuition of
assumption so a spontaneous experience can be apprerceived directly." Those
who succeed, find the truth." Bon, this is a marvel of a sentence. I think
it is safe to assume from the context that there is a very high value placed
on truth here, since you write that those who find truth reach the higher
stages on any of the religious paths. However, to apperceive, is to take in
and understand in the light of what is already known. (I'm quoting Webster's
Dictionary) In other words, it is to perceive with the assumption of some
knowledge. To apperceive is to perceive with the bias of knowledge. It's a
sort of indirect way of perceiving, perceiving through the goggles of
knowledge, if you may. Bon, this sentence does not make sense, but I am
going to assume, yes assume because the sentence leaves me no option, that
part of all religions' goal is to teach people to perceive without bias. We
are to learn to perceive what is truth and what is not truth.
In this letter Bon writes that "one that wants to see miracles, can
convince themselves that they see that". That "perception is bent by
expectation", and it seems from the latter quote, by desire. (This is funny
Bon.) You write we should see "without apriori assumption." Something that
is apriori, is not an assumption. You should really brush up on your Kantian
literature, and perhaps ustilise a dictionary from time to time. Anyway, you
seem to want to say that we can alter our perceptions, and that I have in the
case of Sai Baba. You leave the possiblilty open that I have seen what has
actually taken place. However, you inform us that different people seeing
Sai Baba simultaneously report different perceptions. I have heard this
before in Sai circles. It's as if Sai Baba were doing two different things
at once. One thing for one person, and another for someone else. I'd love
to see some evidence for this. Or is it perhaps like when 3 people see an
automobile accident and report three different stories. Now I don't think
you would want to argue that the automobiles do one thing for one person, and
something else for the other. Here the problem is simply a mistake of facts
by someone. The accident did take place, somehow. Determining how is not so
simple. You seem to be implying that either A. I misperceived the sleight
of hand of Baba, or B. that Sai Baba somehow acted one way in front of me and
another way in front of someone else simultaneously. If B is the way you
suggest, then the goals of religion have a problem. How can one perceive
truth correctly if it's not even clear that it is same for two different
people. If the wind blows west for one person and east for the other all at
once, which way is it actually blowing? Maybe Sai Baba is the exception of
the rule. Yah, that works.
This would explain how Baba would show "what one does not see in
oneself" and what the other person doesn't see in his or her self. The
implication here is that my turning on Sai Baba is turning away from myself.
I show that I don't want to see that I am a con-artist by turning on Sai
Baba because I perceive he is one when he uses sleight of hand. Ok Bon, I
follow. I'm a con-artest trying to fool all the readers of this letter that
Sai Baba is fake when in he is in fact true. He shows me this by being a
con-artist when he really isn't. Yah, I can start to feel that religious
enlightenment coming on that you tell me about. What is really nifty about
this is equation is that Sai Baba can do no wrong. Hell, he could run around
naked and we'd all be learing about ourselves. He could start raping people,
and those people would learn that they're rapers and that they don't want to
face that about themselves. That's a good one Bon. Works every time. By
the way, showing that I have misperceived/seen Sai Baba doing something that
reflects my shortcomings is discrediting me; it is an ad-homonym statement.
I didn't think that I would have to show you this because you claim such
insight to your own alterior motives.
I am still very confused on an issue Bon. You write in one paragraph "I
believe that every person who interacts with Sathya Sai Baba, experiences him
(and what he says and does) differently than others do." Two paragraphs
later you write "What he (Jed) describes as sleight of hand, others describe
as miracle. What he describes as fraud, others see as reality. The event is
the same for all, but the perceptions differ:" If the event is the same for
all, how can everyone experience it differently? Doesn't it seem sort of
strange that an event that is actually the same for all, would be experienced
differently by everyone? In what way do you mean that it is the same for
everyone? The only thing about the same event that is the same for everyone
is that it is different for everyone. How close are you to the truth on this
one Bon? You seem a little confused to me. Oh, I remember. I'm young and
immature. You've managed to move further down the spiritual path and are
"enlightened". Excuse me for my biased misperceptions. I must be just
experiencing this argument differently than someone else reading this will.
Bon, you write that I am arrogant to say that Sai Devotees don't
question Baba. That doubting is a process through which one rid his or
herself of of his or her doubts "to awaken to reality". To go through with
this process that Sai Baba has instigated, one has to trust that Sai Baba has
instigated it, and that it is for his or her own good. Bon, I ask you, how
is one to doubt Sai Baba and rid his or herself of these doubts
simultaneosly. To doubt Sai Baba is to wonder if Sai is instigating the
perception his bumblings and other shortcomings, and to wonder further that
it is for one's own good. To rid oneself of these doubts, one can't even
doubt at all; one has to have the faith that it is the will of Sai Baba and
his good heart. I'm not quite sure that I undestand how one doubts and
believes the same things simultaneously. I am arrogant for saying that
devotees don't doubt Baba? You say it yourself.
You write that sometimes Sai Baba is a bumbler, using sleight of hand,
but that when he produces larger objects he does not. Does he usually
materealise just the big things and use magic for the smaller things. I
wonder what the stats are and under what crtiteria he materialises or just
uses magic. You write "sometimes (objects) appear a few inches over his open
palm, and one can see it forming just before it falls into grasp." I'm sure
I've seen this before my desires bent my perceptions. You admit that Sai
Baba uses sleight of hand; it's only "sometimes" that he shows that he
doesn't. I'm going to assume that these sometimes, everyone perceives the
situation differently, and that some people, the doubters like myself, are
able to see how Baba performs this trick. I mean, I don't know how he would
do such a thing, but according to you, everyone would see this differently,
and I would imagine that anyone who thinks Baba is a trickster would see Baba
like that. I'm only trying to follow your logic.
You write that I did not experience a materialisation because I did not
want to. Let me tell you Bon, I wanted more than anything in the world to
see Baba materialise "something". This would have cleared up my doubts. It
seems to me a bad tactic of Sai Baba to create doubts to remove them, but he
knows best.
You write that in the situation of the watch, where I saw Sai Baba
hiding it, that I assumed that Sai Baba was hiding it wrongly. Let me
explain myself. I assumed Sai Baba was hiding it because he made the
familiar motion he makes when he is materialising something. Ok, Bon. I
assumed wrongly. This was one of those sometimes that Sai Baba opted for
magic because he had altready materialised it, but still wanted to put on a
show like he was producing the watch right in front of our eyes. I buy that.
I can picture Sai Baba as a razzle dazzle sort of guy. "Why assume
anything?" you ask. I don't know Bon, just seems sort of fishy to me. You
know, I'm one of those damned doubters. Hell, why should I assume that a
hurricane that I perceive approaching is actually approaching. That's sort
of dumn isn't it. I'm so unspiritual it's probably just a misperception.
Bon, I just have to wonder how late Sai Baba stays up in the night producing
stuff for the next day. I bet he's got a whole stock of stuff back there for
later. He sure bubles a lot, and that takes a lot of stuff.
One of your major criticisms of me is that I didn't ask Sai Baba what
was with all that bumbling. How about this Bon. What's with all your
bumbling. I can't tell what your trying to say in your letter. I have been
nice in the past and just sort of not pushed any of the real issues, but I
decided that it was probably not a good idea to let you bumble any further.
Why didn't I ask Sai Baba Bon? BECAUSE I'M NOT THAT STUPID.
------------------------
From JGeyerhahn@aol.com Sat May 31 00:56:17 1997
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 03:55:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: I'm a real person
If you would like to see that I'm a real person, give me a call.
I'm Jed Geyerhahn of San Francisco, California. I graduated from Fordham
University in 1992. If you would like to look me up and give me a call, I
invite you to. I'm sure if you'd like to talk to Shagols he will let me give
you his number. We are not conspirators. Using the argument that we are
fictional will prove detrimental to you, I can assure you. We are real as
ever.
---------------------------
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
