--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > That's not quite true. Awareness of the expected result is > > built into the sidhis practice. > > And that is *why*, in my opinion, the "results" of > practicing the siddhis take the form that they do. > If the students had been told that they would develop > to see the blue aura that surrounds all things, they > would have started seeing blue everywhere. > > > Of course, in the case of yogic flying, floating would > > preclude a placebo effect, at least according to most > > peopple... > > No, actually it wouldn't. What if the ability to float > is inherent in being a human being, and the only thing > that prevents it being commonplace is the widespread > belief that it isn't possible? In that case, all that > would be necessary to "produce" floating would be > a placebo that allowed people to get past their > disbelief. Obviously, the TM siddhi placebo is not > that powerful. > > > ...but until then, you can't be 100% certain that hopping > > isn't just placebo... > > And, in my opinion, even afterwards. Historical records > are full of the occasional person floating. Christian > saints have been seen to float, and they certainly > never heard of either Patanjali or Maharishi. > > > ...and certainly you can't be sure that any purely > > internal "flavor" isn't just placebo. > > Agreed. > > > My own take is that if it were just placebo, there would > > be more hopping and other flavors reported, but who can say? > > The effect of imprinting, and decades of having been > told what is possible and what is not, is a tough > nut to crack. One of the reasons that I still like > Carlos Castaneda is that he is one of the only writers > in spiritual tradition I have ever encountered who > captured how powerfully witnessing or performing > actual siddhis affects one. It rocks your world. > Your whole *body* goes into shock, and your mind > starts working overtime to try to *dismiss* what you > just saw or experienced. You try to find any way > you can imagine to make the experience GO AWAY. > > Why? Because holding to the beliefs that were taught > to you is *safe*, comforting. Suddenly finding your- > self in "new territory," where the *only* thing you > can trust is your own experience, is decidedly *not* > safe. It's scary. > > *That* is why I keep bringing up your tendency not > to believe your own experience, Lawson. I honestly > believe that such a stance is counterproductive to > the realization of enlightenment. The enlightened > have -- almost by definition -- learned to trust > their own experience more than anything else. Those > who have not are "also rans." >
Ah, so killing the buddha really means to say "mi casa, su casa" to him? Well, given the state of MY house, it comes to the same thing but...
