All of this ignores my observation that IF you were involved with the TM-Sidhis practice at some point, you WOULD have manifested the ability to float during your TM-Sidhis practice as part of your transition to Unity, according to MMY's claim that full enlightenment can be tested by the ability to float.
So, sorry, your claim that the universe is responsible in some way for your performance or non-performance of floating doesn't wash. Had you been practicing the TM-Sidhis during your transition to Unity, you would have been floating at some point. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > Dear Lawson, > > Just one thing you should know: By definition Unity Consciousness means the > individual intention for one's actions does not start with oneself. It starts > with cosmic intelligence. This was very much my experience. So, unless cosmic > intelligence decided to make accomplishing the flying sidhi the criterion for > Unity Consciousness; that is, cosmic intelligence, in a given moment decided > to make someone fly through the flying sidhi, the mere demand that one prove > one's enlightenment by being able to fly, well it is absurd. Because it > suggests that one's behaviour becomes subject to the control and command of > another person. Each and every action of some one who is enlightened is > determined b cosmic intelligence, not individual intention separate from this > cosmic intelligence. So Maharishi saying that being able to fly is the > determinant of whether a person is enlightened or not, is just > fatuous�UNLESS he meant that, a person who is in Unity Consciousness, > should cosmic intelligence through that person wish for him to fly, then he > had better be able to fly! > > When I was in Unity Consciousness there was nothing anyone could say to me > which would usurp the authority of this cosmic intelligence. So the demand: > Prove that you are enlightened by flying right now would be the equivalent of > saying: Your actions are determined by cosmic intelligence, but now I am > going to be the author of your actions: Obey me, not cosmic intelligence. > Maharishi himself was the classic exemplar of all this: never once attempting > to prove or demonstrate he was enlightened. And this was because he was not > subject to the demands or desires or judgments of anyone else. Not even to > himself: he remained cosmic to the very end I believe. > > Do you understand what I am saying, Lawson? That if you were enlightened you > would have the distinct and unchallengeable experience that all of your > actions were out of your control, and therefore any person making a demand > upon you simply would be computed cosmically in terms of: what is the correct > and appropriate response to what this person is asking me to do, namely prove > that I am enlightened by flying? And your response would NEVER be based upon > satisfying the individual subjective consciousness of that person. Now it > could come about that the cosmic intelligence decided: Ah, this person who is > enlightened is being asked to fly in order to prove he or she is enlightened. > Let's do it, then. But that would be on the terms of the cosmic intelligence > and only incidentally having anything do with the individual having made this > demand. Cosmic intelligence would take it out of this context and put it > inside a cosmic context. > > That said, I believe enlightenment to be an unnatural state of consciousness, > a perfect mystical hallucination. There is an experience of > unboundedness�perpetual�and the experience of one's actions being > spontaneous and creatively involuntary, guided, controlled and executed by > cosmic intelligence, But the state of enlightenment is, in an ultimate sense, > unreal�It is not a state of consciousness within which one is actually > seeing reality as it actually is. This is NOT what is going on. One is seeing > reality through a state of consciousness that does mechanically and > metaphysically represent a state of consciousness other than mere waking > state consciousness as known by the person before he or she became > enlightened. But more than this, it is not the intelligence which created the > universe which has created this state of consciousness; nor does the > intelligence which created the universe have anything to do with the actions > of the enlightened person�I mean in the sense of being the direct and > specific cause of those actions, In this sense the "cosmic" in cosmic > consciousness is not cosmic at all. It certainly is a metaphysical power, and > perhaps even is being controlled by very powerful intelligences; but those > intelligences would be Maharishi's Vedic gods, or personal gods, or "impulses > of creative intelligence". Who have nothing to do with the creation of the > universe nor the creation of Lawson, Robin, or�since she is part of this > discussion�Judy Stein. > > Even supposing there was someone who was a perfect Saint�and was seen to > levitate (as recorded in the lives of various Catholic Saints); in each case > this levitation�'flying'�would never be at the behest of that person's > free will; it would always be imposed upon that person 'from on high', from > the intelligence of the Creator. > > Whatever is the nature of the intelligence which created the universe, which > keeps the universe is existence, and which created you and me and keeps us in > existence, that intelligence would never allow a single created being to defy > the laws of gravity just at will, in order to prove the glorious truth that > someone had achieved what Maharishi deemed Unity Consciousness. No one has > ever been able to do something through individual will which does not > originate in the universal uncreated will�if, that is, the activity entails > flouting some natural law, like gravity. > > Had being able to fly anything do with enlightenment, Maharishi would have > mentioned it in the Science of Being and The Art of Living; it would be in > the Gita; and he would have described how Guru Dev proved his enlightenment > constantly by doing the flying sidhi. That is, levitating upon demand. The > very idea is absurd. Maharishi never even thought of the flying sidhi when he > became enlightened. And in all his video and audio tapes he never mentioned > this idea in twenty years of bringing his teaching to the world. Maharishi > wanted to link doing the sidhis with enlightenment, so me made this absurd > and indefensible assertion that the test of Unity is: Can you fly? > > Of course in another way of understanding him, he was of course perfectly > right. If cosmic intelligence wished to prove someone was enlightened, then > it would levitate that person�*but only on its terms*, not on the terms of > the world, or Lawson. > > My experience of being enlightened was that everything was beautifully and > sometimes terrifyingly out of one's control. Getting de-enlightened had > everything do with with fighting to get control over one's own consciousness > and one's own actions. > > If Maharishi could say this he should also have said: The test of Unity is > whether you can hold back death, whether you can make yourself not subject to > death, whether you can, then, acquire physical immortality. Maharishi Mahesh > Yogi, he was magnificent and wondrous and magical, but he was in the end just > another created human being�but imprisoned inside a mystical hallucination. > The intelligences which created his enlightenment and his glorious moment in > creation, those same intelligences abandoned him in the end: Maharishi never > made one human being beautiful, nor did he make any human being a Saint. But > that was because in the end Maharishi was not beautiful and was not a Saint. > Although for thousands of us initiators, for a ten year period, he was better > than Christ. And as beautiful, and as saintly. > > I would say, Lawson, if someone obeyed the demand of an individual person's > challenge to their enlightenment, and *they answered that person on that > person's terms*: "Prove to me you in Unity by flying right now"�by actually > flying, then they would certainly have demonstrated some extraordinary power, > but they would prove that they were not in Unity. Because a person in Unity > does not behave on the basis of the desires and demands of an single > individual consciousness. A person in Unity behaves according to the > intentions of the intelligences which made that person enlightened. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Why did he wait until Robin had precipitated a crisis > > > > > at MIU--even telling Bevan prior to that to leave Robin > > > > > alone--if he knew all along Robin wasn't in UC? > > > > > > > > He was having valid experiences of UC, according to all > > > > accounts Why discourage Robin in his growth rather then > > > > letting him draw his own conclusions by MMY's generalized > > > > public statements? > > > > > > How would telling Robin he wasn't quite there yet have > > > discouraged Robin's growth? > > > > MMY had ALREADY told Robin and everyone else that the TM-Sidhis would give > > them a feel for whether or not they were "quite there". OBviously, Robin > > didn't get the memo. > > > > > > > > > > In 1983, he was causing big problems at MIU. Why didn't > > > MMY interfere then? > > > > > > > Robin never went back and asked MMY to revalidate things, > > > > did he? > > > > > > They were in personal contact at least once after Robin > > > had set up his own group in Victoria (before coming to > > > MIU). > > > > And MMY llike as not gave him the same advice he gave everyone else: be > > practical in society and, the TM-Sidhis gives you a signpost of whether or > > not you are fully enlightened, etc. > > > > As I said, Robin obviously didn't get the memo. > > > > > > > > > Had he done so, MMY might have said "don't worry" or he > > > > might have said "go and be practical in society" as he > > > > did with Curtis. > > > > > > I think that was Joe Kellett, not Curtis. > > > > THought it was Curtis. No matter. > > > > > > > > > Either way... > > > > > > > > > There doesn't seem to be any way we can know what was > > > > > going on in MMY's mind where Robin was concerned. > > > > > > > > Of course there is. MMY made a very clear statement about > > > > full success in any of the sidhis, such as yogic flying, > > > > and full enlightenment. > > > > > > You're still assuming you understand that statement. > > > > I think that I do, at least on a certain level. > > > > > > > > > It was up to Robin to make the connection, and apparently > > > > he never did. > > > > > > Or he did, and knew it didn't mean what you think it > > > meant. > > > > > > > Or he didn't and hasn't. > > > > > Like I say, best to ask him how he sees all this. You > > > and I aren't in a position to say what's what. > > > > > > > I believe he has already addressed this in a post from some time ago: he > > rejects MMY's position on this outright. > > > > > > L. > > >
