> The siddhis sutras aren't mantras; they're *intentions* > expressed verbally. The semantic meanings are crucial. > They're for a whole different purpose; you aren't using > them to transcend. Apples and kiwi fruit. >
I'm not so sure about the semantic meaning since the connection between the intention and its result is often kind of obscure. I have never heard Maharishi make that claim. It is the name for relationship at the subtlest level that seems to interest him and that is why we don't need Sanskrit according to him, right? But the fact remains that they are sound vibrations thought at the finest level of thought which is exactly where the "problem" Maharishi claims unsuitable mantras do their mischief. Maharishi doesn't claim that it is the transcending with the unsuitable mantra that is the problem, it is thinking it at a subtle level. And with or without semantic meanings the sidhi words are thought at the same subtle level. You may be right that they are way different but I don't really see how. In my experience of thinking the sutra and "fallling back on the Self" you do transcend with a sutra. You just have a shorter distance to go. Interesting questions, thanks for keeping the ball in play. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > When you think of it the sidhis introduce a bunch of new > > sounds that aren't in the Vedic tradition to the subtlest > > levels, English isn't in the tradition. If what he claimed > > was true the sidhis use would be an unknown, untraditional > > vibration entertained at the subtlest part of the mind. It > > kind of throws a wrench in the whole claim doesn't it? > > The siddhis sutras aren't mantras; they're *intentions* > expressed verbally. The semantic meanings are crucial. > They're for a whole different purpose; you aren't using > them to transcend. Apples and kiwi fruit. >
