I am thinking it was quite brilliant for MMY to make the definition of Unity Consciousness one such that our bodies and minds have complete and total control over the world around us, so that we can manipulate it at will. For me it sets up a desirable yet practically unachievable goal, yet one that I can recognize, even from a long way off. A pointer in the distance, and with it that nagging sense of, hmmmmmm, how much closer can I get to UC? Maybe a karmic koan from MMY, who knows?
--- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > . > > MMY basically said that unless you can perform the siddhis at any time, you > can't really lay claim to being in Unity. > > RESPONSE: He did indeed say this. He even said it on my Six Month Course > (where I purportedly entered into a different state of consciousness). > > But the thing here is: when you are enlightened, self-willed, arbitrary, > existential acts [I CHOOSE to do THIS]such as proving your are enlightened > by performing a siddhiappear ludicrous and mechanically absurd. Why? Because > the essence of enlightenment is the sense of having been unified with the > totality of creation, the motion and perpetual flow of every event. You are > dynamically embedded in the universe such that your capacity to isolate > yourself and act irrespective of the intelligence conducting all activity in > the universe, is renderedbelieve it or notimpossible. Therefore actions > performed by the enlightened individual ARE EXPERIENCED to be dictated by an > intelligence which has in a very primary sense taken over one's own > intelligence and even one's individual decision-makingor put another way: > one's individual intelligence submits to, unites with, and acquiesces in the > will of the intelligence which seems to be running to whole show. Maharishi > said what he said for whatever reason. He himself would never subject himself > to this test, and he knew it. It was (in my estimation at least) the attempt > to keep everyone focused on doing the Sidhis, since they had become, by his > pronouncement, the very means of determining whether you were enlightened or > not. Maharishi was never an innocent and guileless person capable of a single > act of humility. He was a tremendous personality, but inside the spiritual > realm of things, he was just as deceivedI know you're going to like THISas > I was. Maharishi was an incredible human being, with absolutely the presence > ontologically to wow all of us who were steeped in the experience of > transcendence through TM. He did not appear so impressive to others who had > not been baptized into his technique of meditation. In fact he was, > scandalously and shockingly as it seems, virtually ignored by the rest of the > world. But to come back to my point: "Maharishi said . . . etc etc etc", > Maharishi had the authority, the power, the charisma to make ANYTHING HE SAID > seem like it was coming from the deepest place in reality. But had anyone > else said what you have reminded me of here, one would have to look at it > critically, as in: what about the relationship between the free will of the > individual and the providential design and execution of the universe? Every > actionby anyonecould be argued to be DETERMINED by the intelligence that > created Maharishi's enlightenment. Was Maharishi ever prepared to prove or > demonstrate in any way that he was self-realized? Had someone turned this > very standard upon him, what would have been his response? Some brilliantly > enigmatic, humorous, playful, knowing ripostewhich would be calculated to > kill of the potency of the very question. No, Maharishi was fibbing > herealthough having said that: Sure, make this the test to determine whether > anyone is "in Unity"? Go ahead. Thanks for the comment. >
