Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Ammachi, "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > > > Rick: > > I am no authority on this subject of omniscience, but I dont see why > one cannot be omniscient in a human body itself. I provide a citation > from the Autobiography of a Yogi, where when Sri Yukteswar gave the > very first experience of Samadhi to Yogananda, his breath stopped and > he was concurrently aware of EVERY SINGLE THING that happened around > him for several miles (men walking, birds flying...). I think you > will agree that this is omniscience; The prefix 'omni' means 'everything', not just what is going on around him up to the distance of a few miles. I realize I am just arguing, but a lot of people see some small example of clairvoyance and offer it as 'proof' of omniscience. Omniscience is impossible to prove by finite number of unusual displays of knowledge. Nandu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 > > The prefix 'omni' means 'everything', not just what is going on around > him up to the distance of a few miles. I realize I am just arguing, > but a lot of people see some small example of clairvoyance and offer > it as 'proof' of omniscience. Omniscience is impossible to prove by > finite number of unusual displays of knowledge. > Nandu: Agreed that that Amma's omniscience is unproven (maybe it is impossible to prove as you say) but it has also not been disproven. -yogaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.