> Another wrinkle: what exactly does "able to do > the siddhis" actually mean in the context of > Unity consciousness? Does it really mean "on > demand"?
This ends up in the broader question of free will and determinism in general in any state of consciousness. Nice point about the paradox. I recognize, and others have pointed out, that MMY is unique in his perspective of siddhis. Many other teachers claim they are impediments to growth, or at lest distractions. But in his system they serve a much more interesting role for me. They are indications that one has gained certain masteries over the laws of nature. I think they are important to distinguish "higher" states from just a flowery description of what ordinary, aware people are walking around in every day. Since he does demonstrate siddhis at their incomplete hopping level, I can't see why he would not show the real deal. I think it was commendable of him to use the performance of siddhis as tests of consciousness. It gives a falsifiable standard. Sometimes I think that it is the lower states of consciousness that we are forgetting about. What I mean by this is that it is possible that the rishis were dealing with a population so ignorant that our modern awareness is the enlightened state. I think any of our awarenesses could be described in the flowery language of the states of consciousness if we cared to see it that way. The only disctinciton we can put our finger on is the performance of supernormal abilities. Otherwise maybe we all have the siddhis and nature has not needed us to show them? > > Another wrinkle: what exactly does "able to do > the siddhis" actually mean in the context of > Unity consciousness? Does it really mean "on > demand"? > > If Unity consciousness is as MMY describes it, > wouldn't it be Nature that "decides" whether a > siddhi is to occur in a specific situation? > > Wouldn't it be Nature that "decides" whether > a person even has the thought to perform a > siddhi, let alone whether it gets performed? > > By what criteria might Nature make these > "decisions" in a particular case? > > If Unity consciousness is simply the experiential > realization of what is "always already" the case > for everyone, then what's the difference between > "being able" and "not being able" to perform a > siddhi? > > Seems to me that in the context of Unity > consciousness, the whole thing gets into a > Self-referential tangle, and contradictions and > paradoxes and infinite regresses are inevitable > when we try to analyze it on an intellectual > basis. > > So why, then, would MMY give an intellectual > description of the nature of the siddhis and > their relationship to states of consciousness? > > Such descriptions can only be given and > received on the level of the "mistake of the > intellect." > > > > > > He also says that perfection of any of the sidhis means that all are > perfected, but aside > > from a few famous avatars, how many people have ever been said to be > perfect in any > > way? > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
