I believe Houdini was a manifestation of this
but I could be wrong.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 6:50
Subject: Re: signs and wonders
During and after WWI there was a massive interest in spiritualism,
seances, and possible "signs" that would allow grieving people to make contact
with their dead sons and husbands and lovers and brothers. It was a kind
of desperation and despair that caused so many to try anything. It was,
of course, taken advantage of by those who genuinely or
cynically imagined themselves mediums. But it was a large and
disturbing social phenomenon. It is part of what inspired Madam
Sosostris. Eliot made more than one comment on this sort of
charlatanism. I think the signs and wonders is also, at least in part,
evoked by that social situation.
Nancy>>> DIana Manister
<[log in to unmask]>03/13/10 9:31 AM >>>
When I was practicing Buddhism, we were told to ignore what seemed to be
angels or deities that visited us during deep meditation, as well as
frightening figures, because they would distract us from the real goal.
Similarly, Richard Halpert (Baba Ram Dass) said in a lecture that when he
first studied with a guru in India, his spiritual quest was delayed when he
became fascinated with 'miracles' he experienced there, such as being told
details of his own life that no one knew, or other inexplicable phenomena. On
his lecture tours, he was always asked for miracle stories, which he said were
a sign along the non-rational path that could prevent enlightenment if the
disciple got attached to them.
I see a connection here to Eliot's distinction between signs and
Sent from my iPod
So -- "Signs are taken for wonders" means that people are given
evidence of something divine, but, not recognizing it as evidence, all they
think is "Isn't this strange!" or "Isn't this astonishing and amazing!" --
sort of like looking at a rainbow and thinking "Isn't that beautiful," but
failing to see it as a sign of God's covenant with Noah. Am I getting
the distinction right?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jerome Walsh <[log in to unmask]>
"Sign" (semeion) is a key
term in the Fourth Gospel. There, in Greek as in English, the
implication of calling a miracle a "sign" rather than a "wonder" is that
its importance lies not in its spectacular nature ("What a wonderful thing!") but in what it signifies about something else (such as
the person of the wonder-worker, or the advent of the Kingdom of God, or
the breadth of divine compassion, or the like). Would Eliot have
been reading the Gospel in Greek?
From: Terry Traynor <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 10:29:48
Subject: signs and
Signs are taken for wonders. "We
would see a sign!"
Does anybody know the difference between signs and wonders?