--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
Well, but the connection is explained in detail when you learn the TM-Sidhis--at least, it was when I learned. The intention is condensed, but it's definitely expressed semantically, in words that have meaning. 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? I'm not sure what you mean by "name for relationship at the subtlest level." Could you elaborate? Relationship between what and what? Do you mean name and form? > 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. He also says all languages are the same at that level, which is why English is OK. But again, the mantra is just a sound, whereas the sutras have semantic meaning and express an intention. > You may be right that they are way different but I don't really > see how. Boy, it seems a *huge* difference to me. > 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. You consciously *get off* the sutra in order to fall back on the Self. You don't do that with a mantra. Everything about sutra practice is intentional; the results are the response to the intention. > Interesting questions, thanks for keeping the ball in play. De nada, same here. I have a theory about the mantras, by the way. Don't know if I've ever run through it here. But it seems to me that in meditation, the mantra, which is a devata or process-of-knowing value, functions as chhandas, an object of knowledge. In effect, the mantra is knowing itself. This creates a sort of negative feedback loop, which is why the mantra disappears, and only Rishi, the Knower, is left. That's *very* clumsily expressed, but maybe it conveys the general idea.
