"Any more exactitude to the answer, especially down to a yes/no is too much ensconced in a materialistic worldview. The rarity of siddhis makes them more mysterious, it's the loving intimacy that matters most, devotion."
When it comes to demonstrating sidhis, yes/no is the ONLY criteria that matter. And it matters even more if a professional magician is in the room cuz they can smell the bullshit that Buddha only dreamed of. --- In [email protected], "Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, of course, proximity to enlightenment will facilitate > siddhis, sought or not. For some people, the burgeoning > presence of siddhis is a confirmation that god exists, or > leads them in that direction, that the love they've been > searching for has finally come to reside in their heart, > and the siddhis that have come with that are simply > instruments of performing even better service for others, > many of whom may not even know the yogi involved. > > Any more exactitude to the answer, especially down to a > yes/no is too much ensconced in a materialistic worldview. > The rarity of siddhis makes them more mysterious, it's the > loving intimacy that matters most, devotion. > > People in love with each other also develop siddhis, some > times confined only with each other, some times benevolent > towards the whole world. Many enterprising people have > siddhis, often through most of their life, though do not > have the good company of others to share these matters with > more openly. > > *When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Mount Grdhrakuta, he > held up a flower to his listeners. Everyone was > silent. Only Mahakashyapa broke into a broad > smile. The Buddha said, " **I have the True Dharma > Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form > of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate, > independent of words and transmitted beyond > doctrine. This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa ."* > > > > On 12/12/07, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It would be silly of me not to have noticed the > > somewhat...uh...angry reactions that come up on > > this board from time to time when I talk about > > the weird things (siddhis) I and others exper- > > ienced around Rama (Frederick Lenz). Here is a > > speculation as to where they might be coming > > from. > > > > I think a lot of it has to do with Rama's "rep." > > He was vilified in the press as a cult leader, > > as someone who slept with his female students, > > and many other things. I can say without reser- > > vation that many of these things were true, and > > could add a great number of other stories from > > my own experience that indicate that the dude > > was occasionally a real slimeball, with a drug > > dependency towards the end of his life and an > > ego on him the size of Texas. > > > > HOWEVER, at other times he could meditate so > > powerfully that if you were in the same room > > with him, it was almost *impossible* to have a > > thought; clear, thoughtless samadhi was your > > *only* option. ALSO, he was able to perform > > siddhis like levitating, disappearing, flying > > through the air, opening dimensions to other > > planes of reality, etc. so powerfully that up > > to hundreds of people at a time saw and exper- > > ienced them. He was able to do this not only > > with students who wanted to believe in these > > things, but in public talks where half the > > audience were skeptics. The skeptics saw these > > things, too. > > > > So go figure, eh? > > > > I honestly think that what offends a lot of > > people about the Rama guy and stories of the > > siddhis that people saw him perform is that > > they have this idea in their heads that either > > 1) the ability to perform siddhis is linked to > > enlightenment, or 2) the those who can perform > > siddhis are 'supposed to be' "more evolved" or > > "beyond" stuff like sleeping with their students, > > or 3) both. > > > > What bothers them is that there is a strong like- > > lihood that Rama was a bit of a charlatan and a > > bit of a rogue and *none* of the things that they > > visualize when they think of an enlightened teacher, > > AND YET HE COULD DO THIS STUFF ANYWAY. > > > > Welcome to the conundrum. That, as far as I can > > tell, is the truth about the dude. I was around > > him for many years, and there is no question in > > my mind that he was at times a charlatan, at times > > a slimeball, and at other times able to manifest > > some of the coolest siddhis in the spiritual canon. > > Go figure. > > > > What does this "mean?" Well, to me it means that > > all the stuff about siddhis being of necessity > > linked to enlightenment are an enormous pile of > > steaming crap. That's simply not true. Siddhis are > > siddhis and enlightenment is enlightenment, and > > there is no one-to-one link between them. Histor- > > ically, some teachers regarded as enlightened > > manifested siddhis, and others did not. Equally > > historically, many of those who can manifest the > > siddhis are open and honest about the fact that > > they are *not* enlightened; they just know how > > to do these siddhis. I've had some limited exper- > > ience with manifesting minor siddhis myself, and > > I'm *certainly* not enlightened on any kind of > > permanent basis. > > > > The other thing that drives some people up the > > wall when I talk about the Rama dude is that he > > offends them morally. They have major problems > > with what he represents, and thus they have major > > problems with believing that he could *also* do > > something like manifest real siddhis. They'd > > prefer to believe in something far more unlikely, > > that he had the ability to somehow hypnotize > > hundreds of people at once, some of them members > > of the press. > > > > What I'm trying to suggest is that there seems to > > have been NO PROBLEM with the guy being a slime- > > ball AND being able to manifest siddhis. It's NOT > > as simplistic as the idealistic books about these > > things say it is. It's not an EITHER/OR rela- > > tionship; its a BOTH/AND relationship. As far > > as I can tell, the guy could coerce some sweet > > young female student into sleeping with him one > > minute and the next minute levitate like gang- > > busters. For all I know, he could have been able > > to boink the young student WHILE levitating, > > although I never saw or heard evidence of this. :-) > > > > The bottom line is that from my perspective, > > siddhis aren't what you idealize them as. They are > > just *abilities*, abilities that *anyone* can > > master, whatever their state of consciousness. > > They have *nothing to do* with state of conscious- > > ness, or with the morality or immorality of the > > person who is able to perform them. > > > > I understand that this fucks with many people's > > idealized notions of what the siddhis are and > > what they "mean" about the person performing them, > > but I'm trying to be honest with you here. I don't > > think that your idealized notions are correct, > > based on my experience. > > > > Being able to perform siddhis doesn't make a > > person good, and being bad doesn't prevent a > > person from being able to do them. Used as some > > kind of "measure" of a person's enlightenment, > > the siddhis are just as big a failure as any > > other "measurement" you might imagine. >
