I am not a siddha. What does this have to do with enlightenment? Who in the TMO, including MMY have demonstrated this? I am speaking of scientifically confirmed levitation, even temporary and partial (reduction of body mass, not necessarily floating). Names, places, researchers, and peer reviewed papers please.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > Xeno, can you fly? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > Welcome back Robin. I did not say anything earlier, not sure you were going > > to stay a while. And I do not seem to have much time lately to wade through > > voluminous text. > > > > I think your analysis below has some weight to it. As Susan hinted at > > earlier, I think the state you were experiencing was a mystical state of > > union, not enlightenment; you cannot back out of enlightenment; you can > > back out of glimpses or more sustained experiences of its precursors. > > Enlightenment is a realisation, it is not a sustained experience of one > > type; it is an understanding, though not an intellectual one, and it shows > > one that all ideas one had about it were nonsense. It is utterly not > > metaphysical. The Zen master Dogen said, 'Do not think you will necessarily > > be aware of your own enlightenment'. The ego resists to the end its > > destruction, or rather its inactivation; it can hang around, like a broken > > watch. Yours is still ticking. This is not wrong or bad. Giving up control > > not bad either; but the 'correct' understanding is that it makes no > > difference whatever whether you are in control or not. > > > > I tend to dislike religious terminology, that metaphysical murk, but I > > found this passage which might interest you by C.S. Lewis, that atheist, > > then Christian, then an off-again and on-again Christian: > > > > 'God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere > > openly and directly our world quite realise what it will be like when He > > does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks > > onto the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but > > what is the good of saying your are on His side then, when you see the > > whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else --- > > something it never entered your head to conceive --- comes crashing in; > > something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of > > us will have any choice left?' > > > > The embrace of God is terrible and crushing to the ego; I believe you are > > simply substituting another version of the ego's grasp for immortality, its > > attempt to subvert infinity for its limited ends. The ego wants God as an > > ally, to pump itself up; God only 'wants' to be God, because God is God - I > > am that I am, and, all This is That. Eventually a watch will stop. > > Eventually time will run out for you, and then there will be no choice, in > > that peculiar sense that it does not matter, but it is not a bad thing. > > > > Like Barry, you seem to have an interest in maintaining free will, that > > strange concept that we are agents of our own destiny. We are, but not in > > the sense we tend to think. In this you and Barry seem to be alike even if > > all else about you is not. I imagine the two of you being on the same boat, > > though one is perhaps starboard, and the other is on the port side. The > > boat I am imagining is the Titanic; nothing like a dip in the cool ocean to > > wake one up. > > > > --- 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 fatuousUNLESS 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 unboundednessperpetualand 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, unrealIt 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 personI 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, orsince she is part of this discussionJudy Stein. > > > > > > Even supposing there was someone who was a perfect Saintand 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 > > > willif, 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 beingbut 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. > > >> > > > > > >
