--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> Coming back to this, because I think it's an
> important point: If Unity consciousness is as
> MMY defines it, and if he's in Unity consciousness,
> it isn't *up* to MMY, independently of nature,
> whether to perform siddhis.  It's nature's call.
> So it wouldn't really be a falsifiable standard
> after all.
> And yes, it's all very much wrapped up in the free
> will/determinism paradox.  I don't personally
> have any problem with the idea that my sense of
> free will is an illusion--that is, my "small 
> self"'s sense of free will.  I think we assume
> we have free will because we're dimly intuiting
> that the Self has free will.
> I think I've posted this quote from Schroedinger
> here before, but it's germane to this discussion:
> Erwin Schroedinger, in an essay called "The I That Is God,"
> wrote:
>    ...The space-time events in the body of a living being which
>    correspond to the activity of its mind, to its self-conscious or
>    any other actions, are...if not strictly deterministic at any
>    rate statistico-deterministic....Let me regard this as a fact, as
>    I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the
>    well-known, unpleasant feeling about "declaring oneself to be a
>    pure mechanism."  For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as
>    warranted by direct introspection....
>    Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory
>    conclusion from the following two premises:
>    (i)  My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws
>    of Nature [determinism].
>    (ii)  Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I
>    am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that
>    may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take
>    full responsibility for them [free will].
>    The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think,
>    that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say,
>    every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if
>    any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws
>    of Nature.

Of course, the brain imaging of someone "willing" something to happen shows 
that the 
"willing" takes place AFTEr the impulse of muscular activity. So free will, 
from a 
neurological pov is is illusion, regardless of how it seems to you internally.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to