On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj<vajradhatu@...> wrote: >> >> On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote: >> >>>> L. >>>> --- In [email protected], Vaj<vajradhatu@> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only >>>>> avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution >>>>> of consciousness. >>>>> >>> So, why did "Shank." himself utilize -- according to Shankara-dig- >>> vijaya of Maadhava-VidyaaraNya -- at least two of those Paata�jala- >>> siddhi-s, namely 'cittasya parashariiraavesha' (entered the dead >>> body of King Amaruka for "acquirement of knowledge of sex-love") >>> and 'aakaasha-gamanam'? >>> >>> "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the >>> skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati... >> One, I wouldn't base his spiritual view on a fairy tale or what one >> says. And two, siddhis as obstructions applies to path, not fruition. >> > Certainly the sidhis are an obstruction. > > L.
Well now that WOULD really depend on the path. They certainly aren't an obstruction in many tantric paths. ;-) Oh well, at least you folks aren't discussing Wiener's penis. :-D
