--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip>I personally > > > believe that the latter are a made-up set of > > > techniques that have nothing to do with what > > > Patanjali was describing, but if others choose > > > to believe that they're "authentic Patanjali" > > > and derive some benefit from practicing them, > > > cool. > > > > Kind of an odd thing to hear coming from you Turq. > > I don't see why; my stance on the siddhis > hasn't changed since 1978.
Nor your success with them apparently... > > > I had unmistakable, repeatable and sustained experiences > > of siddhis doing the program, and after stopping the practice > > of it. For you to imply that Maharishi could equal the > > achievement of Patanjali ... > > I know you're trying to be cute, but that's not what > I was implying. I don't think that the TM siddhis > do anything at all; any effect is the result of the > "Dumbo's feather" syndrome, also known as the placebo > effect, also known as moodmaking. You have missed the point of the siddhis, which is to practice them innocently, without any expectation of a result. It is the expectation of a result that interferes with the result of a sutra actually, so if I or anyone else were moodmaking, there would be no results to report! If you are familiar with the practice of sanyama, you would see these mechanics as obvious, and a direct repudiation of your statement about moodmaking or Dumbo's feather. Sorry to say, you don't know what you are talking about here.
