--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "ruthsimplicity" > <ruthsimplicity@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > I know of NO spiritual tradition on > > > the planet with the exception of Maharishi's TMO > > > that believes that the indicator of full enlight- > > > enment is the ability to float (levitate). I know > > > of many who would, in fact, disagree with this > > > vehemently. > > > > > > Please find me a quote that says otherwise. If > > > you can't, I suggest that your "impression" came > > > about because you just accepted what Maharishi > > > said was the definition of full enlightenment > > > BECAUSE HE SAID IT, and that you never looked > > > into any other traditions' definitions of > > > enlightenment, because you never had to. You > > > already HAD the definition, and it was true > > > because Maharishisez. > > > > If I may briefly interrupt this discussion, I have a > > question. Did MMY clearly say that if you could not > > "float" you were not enlightened? Is there a written > > source for that? > > I don't have a source, Ruth, but it has been > quoted here often with no refutations from > the TM faithful.
*Cited*, not quoted. There are some quotes from MMY to this effect in some of the early articles on the TM-Sidhis program in the MIU journal "Modern Science and Vedic Science," but the articles haven't been reproduced on the Web that I know of. I have copies, but unfortunately they're in deep storage. The criterion may have been > for "full enlightenment," as Lawson has been > using it. I dunno. Yes, Unity Consciousness. That's my understanding as well. > I do know that not only do I not agree with > it, back in the early days of his teaching, > *Maharishi* didn't agree with it. At Squaw > Valley in 1968 he gave several talks in which > he said emphatically that the siddhis and the > ability to perform them had nothing whatsoever > to do with enlightenment. At that time he > actively pooh-poohed interest in the siddhis. > It was the original context of his "capture > the fort" metaphor, as I remember. Heh. The point of the "capture the fort" metaphor was that you weren't to get distracted from the fort (enlightenment) by all the treasures (siddhis) to be found in the surrounding territory, because once you had captured the fort, you automatically owned all the treasures in the surrounding territory as well. In other words: once you're enlightened, you'll have all the siddhis--exactly the opposite of what Barry is suggesting. > Obviously, this former teaching went by the > wayside when he found a way to sell the siddhis. Or, when he realized that practice of the siddhis sutras was actually designed by Patanjali as a program for achieving enlightenment, and that performing siddhis was just a byproduct, a consequence and benchmark of one's progress toward enlightenment (specifically Unity Consciousness). Whther he had this in mind all along and simply didn't want people to expect or experiment with siddhis until he had all the details of sutra practice and the rationale for it worked out, or whether the purpose of Patanjali's program was something he discovered later on, who can say? At any rate, at first MMY was voicing the conventional understanding, that Patanjali had warned *against* practicing the siddhis sutras because the siddhis were just a distraction. It's entirely possible MMY believed that at first. But as with so many other elements of the enlightenment tradition, he came to believe that the conventional understanding of Patanjali was in error: Patanjali was warning against practicing the siddhis sutras *for the sake of achieving siddhis*, as opposed to for the sake of achieving Unity Consciousness.
