[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
Reply to 157719: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis commenting on Turqs experience with Rama - Fred Lenz: So if this teacher had some version of this ability, and you were in deep rapport with him, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think he might have developed some other interesting ways to shift a... Lurk: I have mentioned before that when I read an interview Rama gave back in the early 90's (I believe), I was blown away. The impression I got was that of full blown enlightenment. A second interview six or seven years later, still had, in my opinion, the unmistakeable mark of enlightenment, although it was a little dulled, but enlightenment still intact. That was my impression. Speculating, given the little I know about the guy, it seemed like he pushed the envelope to the extreme, but even for the enlightend, there is only so far you can push it, before you find yourself past the point of no return. Well, I was around the guy for quite a few years and I'd have to agree with you. During the early Eighties it *was*, in fact, like being around someone who seemed to be enlightened. Meditate with the dude and there was just no you there. However, as you say, the guy did push the envelope, and IMO pushed things beyond what his karma and his body could handle. He had this I can handle it attitude about excess, whether it was his taste for Coca-colas or his involvement in extreme sports or his lifestyle with regard to women, and all of them probably took their toll, but I think it was the Valium that finally took him out. It got prescribed for him after a sports injury, but as far as I can tell he got to like it a lot more than he should have, and towards the end was popping handfuls of them, according to folks who saw him do it. That's when I bailed. I wasn't there for the flash and the siddhis but for what it was like to meditate with him. And at that point he'd pretty much stopped meditating with his students and his entire program had shifted its focus to success in one's careers, and I already had about as much success at that as I was interested in, so what was to stick around for? I suspect that the Valium had eroded his ability to meditate as well as he had previously, and that's one of the reasons he didn't do it any more. The result of all this IMO, was his own death. Towards the end (I wasn't around, having left about a year earlier), he started complaining about all sorts of serious ill- nesses that the doctors couldn't pin down, laying it thick on his students that he thought he was dying. Well, duh. If you look up the symptoms he was complaining about and then look up the symptoms of Valium dependency, there is a complete matchup. And right beside the symptoms on the same Web pages, in BIG PRINT, is Trying to stop a Valium addiction by just quitting cold turkey is NOT ADVISED because of the danger of depression and suicide. So what does Mr. I-Can-Handle-It decide to do? Quit cold turkey, that's what. Less than a week later he was dead, a suicide. I think it's really sad, that someone so talented as a teacher and with so much consciousness and ability to meditate well pissed it all away, but on the other hand it's an object lesson that NO ONE can handle certain things. They'll take you out if you're a dumb sucker with the consciousness of a rock, and they'll take you out if you're a high guy with some serious chops on your state of consciousness. Same thing happened to Chogyam Trungpa, who came with a far more impressive pedigree from legitimate lin- eages than Rama did and ended up drinking himself to death. Who *knows* what's going on in situations like this? I sure don't. For me the Rama trip was a great ride, real E-ticket stuff, until it wasn't any more, and at that point I split. I'm thankful for the things I learned that were positive, and I'm equally thankful for having gotten to see and learn from behaviors that I consider less positive. Both will give me a lot to think about and ponder for the rest of my life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any more exactitude to the answer, especially down to a yes/no is too much ensconced in a materialistic worldview. The rarity of siddhis makes them more mysterious, it's the loving intimacy that matters most, devotion. When it comes to demonstrating sidhis, yes/no is the ONLY criteria that matter. I would agree. It's *exactly* the same scenario as Off bragging about how Shotokan karate guys are the best and could kick anyone else's ass. Empty, self-important rhetoric until they actually DO kick some ass. As Cuba Gooding might say, Show me the money! Show us the levitation, don't talk about it and theorize about it. And it matters even more if a professional magician is in the room cuz they can smell the bullshit that Buddha only dreamed of. Again, I'd be the first to agree. It would be good to hear a professional magician try to explain away some of the levitation I saw the Rama guy do, because it often took place on the fly, in circumstances where apparatus didn't seem a possibility. I mean, we've hiked out into the desert for three hours, and the guy is wearing nothing more than shorts and a T-shirt and hiking boots, carrying nothing, and he just stops in the middle of an open space with nothing around him that could even be *used* as apparatus (the nearest trees or cliffs from which to string wires were half a mile away). And yet the dude just steps up off the sand and walks around for a few minutes, a foot above the ground. Or in a Denny's at 3 a.m., deserted except for him and a few of his students and one waitress. Rama didn't even *choose* the Denny's in question; I did, because I was driving us back from somewhere and needed some coffee. So the waitress gives us all our coffee and then asks if we need anything more, and when we say no she ducks out the front door and goes around to the side of the building, out of sight, to smoke a cigarette. Rama grins at us and just lifts up off the genuine naugahyde of the Denny's booth and hangs there in mid-air for a few seconds, sipping his coffee. Everybody cracks up and laughs, which was probably the point of the stunt. Curtis, I'm *more* than open to suggestions from you or anyone else as to how these things could have been staged by a magician. I don't see that as being a relevant option when trying to explain away this particular guy's levitations. The idea of being somehow hypnotized into seeing these things might be more relevant, except that over the years, almost *none* of the instances of siddhis I and other people saw were suggested or announced ahead of time. It was as if the guy was purposefully *avoiding* anything that could later be regarded as suggestion. He'd just DO them, sometimes in the middle of a sentence, to catch everyone by surprise. So have at it, dude. I wish you'd been there in the desert at the time, and could bring your know- ledge of stage magic to the table. I have *tried* over the years -- Lord knows I've tried -- to come up with some way to rationalize these experiences away and write them off to some trick, and damnit I can't. They -- WHATEVER they were -- happened, and I'm stuck with having seen them. Believe me, that is FAR scarier and harder to live with than being able to explain them away as some kind of trick or hallucination.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Extrapolating from this, it seems to me that if MMY really wanted people to levitate, and was enlightened himself, what he'd do is sit them down in a room with him and demonstrate levitation. Their bodies would learn the siddhi far more quickly and far more effectively than they would practicing some made-up technique in English. This is what Muktananda did with his students, no ? Problem is that they are dependent of the shakti of the teacher to perform the siddhi, in the same way as the students of Rama were. That is if Rama students had independent experiences ofcourse. And that is why Muktananda praised Maharishi for giving knowledge for the whole world independent of him personally because he saw that Maharishis role was more universal and has effect beyond a small group of students. When Maharishi leaves we can go on and on with the practise independent of his shakti.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Extrapolating from this, it seems to me that if MMY really wanted people to levitate, and was enlightened himself, what he'd do is sit them down in a room with him and demonstrate levitation. Their bodies would learn the siddhi far more quickly and far more effectively than they would practicing some made-up technique in English. This is what Muktananda did with his students, no ? I don't know much about him, so I can't commment. Problem is that they are dependent of the shakti of the teacher to perform the siddhi, in the same way as the students of Rama were. That is if Rama students had independent experiences ofcourse. Just to clarify, Rama never claimed that he was trying to *teach* the siddhis to his students; he just demo'd them. Occasionally, he would demo some- thing like being able to see the future or read other people's minds and many of us in the audience would pick up on something and be able to do it ourselves later, but it wasn't really an I'm going to teach you how to do this scenario. As for the boost that one gets from the shakti or energy of the teacher not being permanent, I agree with you completely. It's sometimes *useful*, if that energy can lift you to the point where you can have, for example, far deeper experiences of meditation and samadhi than you normally exper- ience on your own, and having experienced them clearly helps you get back to those same exper- iences later, *on your own*. But otherwise, shakti junkies are just like any other kind of junkie in my opinion. I don't see the hit that one gets from a teacher as being terribly useful in the long run *unless* it leads to being able to repeat the deeper experience of things *on one's own*. If you can't do it *on your own* later, then what use was the glimpse of something you got while in the teacher's presence, eh? At best it's just a travelogue, a glimpse into your own future to give you hope. And that is why Muktananda praised Maharishi for giving knowledge for the whole world independent of him personally because he saw that Maharishis role was more universal and has effect beyond a small group of students. When Maharishi leaves we can go on and on with the practise independent of his shakti. True. You can go on with practices THAT DON'T WORK for as long as you want. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When MMY claimed that if a person were to levitate it would indicate enlightenment, he was dangling a carrot to inspire his followers to achieve levitation - and subsequent recogniton within TMO circles as an Enlightened person. The whole proposition is directly contrary to MMY's Bhagavad Gita commentary that no outward signs can identify a person's level of consciousness. I prefer the Bhagavad Gita commentary on this matter - therefore, I don't agree that levitation is an indication of enlightenment. I don't doubt that bonafide levitation is possible; yet I have little regard for its significance. Evan full- scale flight through the skies. You realized how cold the air is this time of year ? :D FWIW: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-08.html [Brahman is] aakaashas tallingaat (tat; lingaat) The word Akasa [aakaasha] must be understood as Brahman
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Extrapolating from this, it seems to me that if MMY really wanted people to levitate, and was enlightened himself, what he'd do is sit them down in a room with him and demonstrate levitation. Their bodies would learn the siddhi far more quickly and far more effectively than they would practicing some made-up technique in English. This, of course, presupposes that Maharishi could actually levitate, of course. (..or that anyone else could) Sure, I am completely with you regarding the field effect, and learning by proximity, being in the aura of someone who just *shows* you how things work in the daily life. Thats actually my path here! But, just to put in another though or perspective: I think or rather propose that the Siddhis themselves weren't all that important in themselves to MMY. They were as some here said, like a carrot that makes you going. (Too bad if the carrot is already swallowed) Sometime ago here was a discussion about Patanjali Yoga Sutras and the process of Samayama. I threw in that one of the main Advaitic Commentators, Madhusudana Saraswati said that Samyama is the most effective technique for realization. Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) Madhusudana goes on to say, soon after that, that supreme devotion to Ishvara would beat it all, and unnessecitate the former practise. That opened my eyes! For MMY devotion was not an option he could have offered in a technique which was constructed undenominational. His option was therefore to offer Samyama as a technique on the lower forms, the Siddhis, and not stressing on the phenomena of it (saying they are only a side-effect), still using it as a sort of carrot. I say this because I know, that MMY comes from a fairly conservative tradition, and would be aware of the main figures like Madhusudana, so I am sure he is aware of his commentary on the gita (its written there) I even think he borrowed from him heavily in his own commentary. Samayama on the lower forms would thus prepare the nervous system. purify it and make it subtle, which is its only purpose. Enlightenment itself cannot be given. It comes by itself by the recognition of the Self by Itself, so only purification is most important. So, to sum it up, actual attainment of Siddhis was not the goal, the way, Samayama is the goal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Extrapolating from this, it seems to me that if MMY really wanted people to levitate, and was enlightened himself, what he'd do is sit them down in a room with him and demonstrate levitation. Their bodies would learn the siddhi far more quickly and far more effectively than they would practicing some made-up technique in English. This is what Muktananda did with his students, no ? I don't know much about him, so I can't commment. Problem is that they are dependent of the shakti of the teacher to perform the siddhi, in the same way as the students of Rama were. That is if Rama students had independent experiences ofcourse. Just to clarify, Rama never claimed that he was trying to *teach* the siddhis to his students; he just demo'd them. Occasionally, he would demo some- thing like being able to see the future or read other people's minds and many of us in the audience would pick up on something and be able to do it ourselves later, but it wasn't really an I'm going to teach you how to do this scenario. As for the boost that one gets from the shakti or energy of the teacher not being permanent, I agree with you completely. It's sometimes *useful*, if that energy can lift you to the point where you can have, for example, far deeper experiences of meditation and samadhi than you normally exper- ience on your own, and having experienced them clearly helps you get back to those same exper- iences later, *on your own*. But otherwise, shakti junkies are just like any other kind of junkie in my opinion. I don't see the hit that one gets from a teacher as being terribly useful in the long run *unless* it leads to being able to repeat the deeper experience of things *on one's own*. If you can't do it *on your own* later, then what use was the glimpse of something you got while in the teacher's presence, eh? At best it's just a travelogue, a glimpse into your own future to give you hope. And that is why Muktananda praised Maharishi for giving knowledge for the whole world independent of him personally because he saw that Maharishis role was more universal and has effect beyond a small group of students. When Maharishi leaves we can go on and on with the practise independent of his shakti. True. You can go on with practices THAT DON'T WORK for as long as you want. :-) It works very well thank. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote: Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama on atma (atma-samyama). You seem to be changing that message-- but if you have a quote or a verse I'd like to hear it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote: Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama on atma (atma-samyama). Just occurred to me: perhaps Sanskrit compound words with 'saMyama' as their last component are not necessarily always /tatpuruSa-s/...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
Curtis, I'm *more* than open to suggestions from you or anyone else as to how these things could have been staged by a magician. I don't see that as being a relevant option when trying to explain away this particular guy's levitations. Your experiences are really compelling and I am not inclined to just toss them handily in some I know what happened box. That is one of the reasons I really enjoy your descriptions. I wish I could have had my own mind blown that way! There are levitation tricks for small groups that can be practiced on the street, but I don't think that is probably the most likely answer. Here is how I break it down in my perspective. You have often talked about how this guy seemed to exhibit a powerful ability to change your state of mind and perceptions. If I had to choose between a person having this ability over actually floating in the air, I would probably choose the first. I do believe that our minds are mysterious in many ways. I also recognize the limits of what we know about nonverbal communication. Having the ability to change someone's perception or state of mind isn't exactly chopped liver in my book. There are so many levels of the power of rapport that are unknown. Here is a more mundane but powerful experience in my own life. We were recently talking about a friend who passed away, Steve Shimer. He was a guy who had one of the most unique vibes of anyone I ever met. Since he was MMY's secretary I just always assumed that he was enlightened when I first met him. But as I spent more time with him I came to believe that this explanation didn't really cut it. He was just a special human. Although it may sound trite, Steve would look at me with such openness and kindness that it would shift my state every time. It was completely hypnotic in the best possible sense of the word. It created a space where thinking and feeling were enhanced. When I think of the guy I feel it again. I'm sure you can relate. So if this teacher had some version of this ability, and you were in deep rapport with him, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think he might have developed some other interesting ways to shift a person's state. The French have a term folie aux duex that touches on how two people can enter into a shared mental state. On a less positive note, my personal interactions with mentally ill people have produced some real strange moments for me. Since I enjoy sinking into people, I have had my world rocked by entering into rapport with someone who was running some broken software. In your descriptions of how you relate to people you meet you have revealed your own empathic rapport is at a high level, so I know you understand. So those are my thoughts for what its worth. I am fascinated with learning more about how humans effect each other mentally. I feel like this area has some real magic to uncover as it is better understood. The fact is that you were there and I was not, so thanks for sharing the stories. It is nice to be reminded that in so many areas of life, I really don't have a clue! Maybe the guy could actually float. I wish he had allowed it to be studied if that were the case. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Any more exactitude to the answer, especially down to a yes/no is too much ensconced in a materialistic worldview. The rarity of siddhis makes them more mysterious, it's the loving intimacy that matters most, devotion. When it comes to demonstrating sidhis, yes/no is the ONLY criteria that matter. I would agree. It's *exactly* the same scenario as Off bragging about how Shotokan karate guys are the best and could kick anyone else's ass. Empty, self-important rhetoric until they actually DO kick some ass. As Cuba Gooding might say, Show me the money! Show us the levitation, don't talk about it and theorize about it. And it matters even more if a professional magician is in the room cuz they can smell the bullshit that Buddha only dreamed of. Again, I'd be the first to agree. It would be good to hear a professional magician try to explain away some of the levitation I saw the Rama guy do, because it often took place on the fly, in circumstances where apparatus didn't seem a possibility. I mean, we've hiked out into the desert for three hours, and the guy is wearing nothing more than shorts and a T-shirt and hiking boots, carrying nothing, and he just stops in the middle of an open space with nothing around him that could even be *used* as apparatus (the nearest trees or cliffs from which to string wires were half a mile away). And yet the dude just steps up off the sand and walks around for a few minutes, a foot above the ground. Or in a Denny's at 3 a.m., deserted except for him and a few of his students and one waitress. Rama didn't even
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:29 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote: Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama on atma (atma-samyama). Just occurred to me: perhaps Sanskrit compound words with 'saMyama' as their last component are not necessarily always /tatpuruSa-s/... Context is certainly important and it appears samyama just refers generically to the dharana-dhyana-samadhi triad but in the gudhartha- dipika it's a compound atma-samyama which is rather specific. Also siddhi can have differing meanings as well. In some instances siddhi merely means success, as opposed to asiddhi, failure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
Me, too, but that would have taken away the conundrum aspect of it all, and most of the time I really *enjoy* that -- not knowing exactly what to think about it all. Being comfortable with ambiguity. That takes a bit of practice doesn't it? Thanks for the detailed response. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Curtis, I'm *more* than open to suggestions from you or anyone else as to how these things could have been staged by a magician. I don't see that as being a relevant option when trying to explain away this particular guy's levitations. Your experiences are really compelling and I am not inclined to just toss them handily in some I know what happened box. That is one of the reasons I really enjoy your descriptions. I wish I could have had my own mind blown that way! Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it. :-) As I've suggested, having to live with this stuff is not as easy as it sounds. Thanks for replying...I'll spend my last post of the week bouncing off of your impressions (as opposed to arguing with them). There are levitation tricks for small groups that can be practiced on the street, but I don't think that is probably the most likely answer. Nor do I. The environments in which I and others saw these things just didn't lend themselves to apparatus of any kind. I honestly don't think that's a possibility, much less a likelihood. Here is how I break it down in my perspective. You have often talked about how this guy seemed to exhibit a powerful ability to change your state of mind and perceptions. If I had to choose between a person having this ability over actually floating in the air, I would probably choose the first. And I have *no problem* with this. As I've said many times, I not only don't know whether a camera trained on the scene would have recorded some of the siddhis I witnessed, I have severe *doubts* that they would have. I consider it *likely* that what I saw was some kind of subtle level phenomenon that wouldn't be perceived by a camera. In other words, I am *not* claiming that he was actually floating in mid-air because I have nothing with which *to* assert that. It could have been that something was happening that caused dozens to hundreds of people at a time to *perceive* him as floating in mid-air. One of the reasons I'm comfortable with saying this is another of the siddhis I witnessed often, invisibility. I'll give you a sample scenario. I'm sitting in the desert on one of our hikes there, and the Rama guy comes walking along in front of the group and pauses when he gets to me. He's not looking directly at me or singling me out or anything; he just stopped there and continued giving a talk to the whole group. But as I'm sitting there watching this guy who is at best 2-3 feet in front of me, all of a sudden his body starts to turn transparent. First it gets a little opaque, and then fully transparent, and I can see the canyon in the background and the night stars *through* a faint outline of where he used to be. This is such a shock to me that I start leaning back and forth to shift perspective, to see if the background objects change perspective the way they really would if I were really looking through him. They do. OK, now in such a situation, did the guy *really* disappear? Well, of course not. Even in you can somehow justify violating the laws of physics and floating in the air to levitate, what is gonna explain someone really going invisible. What it seemed like was more like the light got bent in such a way that it seemed not to reflect off of him any more, but passed through him, as if he were not solid, more a hologram. I'm pretty sure that if I'd had a camera, its eye wouldn't have recorded the invisibility. But mine did. So *something* happened to cause the *perception* of invisibility, of light passing through a body rather than bouncing off of it. What that some- thing is I don't understand. I know it wasn't suggestion, because in none of the many times I saw this phenomenon was it ever suggested to me that I should; it just happened, and was always a surprise when it did. So, similarly, is there a possibility that what happened with his levitating was that my state of attention was shifted such that I perceived something on a different level of existence that wasn't there on the surface level of existence? You betcha. I do believe that our minds are mysterious in many ways. I also recognize the limits of what we know about nonverbal communication. Having the ability to change someone's perception or state of mind isn't exactly chopped liver in my book. Mine, either. :-) Even if that were the *only* thing going on, as you say, that's not chopped
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, I'm *more* than open to suggestions from you or anyone else as to how these things could have been staged by a magician. I don't see that as being a relevant option when trying to explain away this particular guy's levitations. Your experiences are really compelling and I am not inclined to just toss them handily in some I know what happened box. That is one of the reasons I really enjoy your descriptions. I wish I could have had my own mind blown that way! Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it. :-) As I've suggested, having to live with this stuff is not as easy as it sounds. Thanks for replying...I'll spend my last post of the week bouncing off of your impressions (as opposed to arguing with them). There are levitation tricks for small groups that can be practiced on the street, but I don't think that is probably the most likely answer. Nor do I. The environments in which I and others saw these things just didn't lend themselves to apparatus of any kind. I honestly don't think that's a possibility, much less a likelihood. Here is how I break it down in my perspective. You have often talked about how this guy seemed to exhibit a powerful ability to change your state of mind and perceptions. If I had to choose between a person having this ability over actually floating in the air, I would probably choose the first. And I have *no problem* with this. As I've said many times, I not only don't know whether a camera trained on the scene would have recorded some of the siddhis I witnessed, I have severe *doubts* that they would have. I consider it *likely* that what I saw was some kind of subtle level phenomenon that wouldn't be perceived by a camera. In other words, I am *not* claiming that he was actually floating in mid-air because I have nothing with which *to* assert that. It could have been that something was happening that caused dozens to hundreds of people at a time to *perceive* him as floating in mid-air. One of the reasons I'm comfortable with saying this is another of the siddhis I witnessed often, invisibility. I'll give you a sample scenario. I'm sitting in the desert on one of our hikes there, and the Rama guy comes walking along in front of the group and pauses when he gets to me. He's not looking directly at me or singling me out or anything; he just stopped there and continued giving a talk to the whole group. But as I'm sitting there watching this guy who is at best 2-3 feet in front of me, all of a sudden his body starts to turn transparent. First it gets a little opaque, and then fully transparent, and I can see the canyon in the background and the night stars *through* a faint outline of where he used to be. This is such a shock to me that I start leaning back and forth to shift perspective, to see if the background objects change perspective the way they really would if I were really looking through him. They do. OK, now in such a situation, did the guy *really* disappear? Well, of course not. Even in you can somehow justify violating the laws of physics and floating in the air to levitate, what is gonna explain someone really going invisible. What it seemed like was more like the light got bent in such a way that it seemed not to reflect off of him any more, but passed through him, as if he were not solid, more a hologram. I'm pretty sure that if I'd had a camera, its eye wouldn't have recorded the invisibility. But mine did. So *something* happened to cause the *perception* of invisibility, of light passing through a body rather than bouncing off of it. What that some- thing is I don't understand. I know it wasn't suggestion, because in none of the many times I saw this phenomenon was it ever suggested to me that I should; it just happened, and was always a surprise when it did. So, similarly, is there a possibility that what happened with his levitating was that my state of attention was shifted such that I perceived something on a different level of existence that wasn't there on the surface level of existence? You betcha. I do believe that our minds are mysterious in many ways. I also recognize the limits of what we know about nonverbal communication. Having the ability to change someone's perception or state of mind isn't exactly chopped liver in my book. Mine, either. :-) Even if that were the *only* thing going on, as you say, that's not chopped liver. There are so many levels of the power of rapport that are unknown. Here is a more mundane but powerful experience in my own life. We were recently talking about a friend who passed away, Steve Shimer. He was a guy who had one of the most unique vibes of anyone I ever met. Since he was MMY's secretary I just always assumed that he was enlightened when I first met him. But as I spent more time with him I came to believe that this explanation didn't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote: Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama on atma (atma-samyama). No, it didn't. No mention of Atma in the translation I have. Referring to verse 21. You seem to be changing that message-- No. but if you have a quote or a verse I'd like to hear it. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) 23. However, absorption (samadhi) is quickly accomplished through special devotion to God. From that follows mano-nasa (elimination of the modifications of the mind) and vasana-ksaya (dissipation of past impressions.) 24. Knowledge of Reality (tattva-jnana), elimination of the modifications of the mind (mano-nasa), as also the dissipation of past impressions (vasana-ksaya) - when these three are practised together, Liberation while still being alive (Jivanmukti) becomes firm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote: Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama on atma (atma-samyama). No, it didn't. No mention of Atma in the translation I have. Referring to verse 21. You seem to be changing that message-- No. but if you have a quote or a verse I'd like to hear it. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) 23. However, absorption (samadhi) is quickly accomplished through special devotion to God. From that follows mano-nasa (elimination of the modifications of the mind) and vasana-ksaya (dissipation of past impressions.) 24. Knowledge of Reality (tattva-jnana), elimination of the modifications of the mind (mano-nasa), as also the dissipation of past impressions (vasana-ksaya) - when these three are practised together, Liberation while still being alive (Jivanmukti) becomes firm The above is gudhartha-dipika by Madhusudana Saraswati, preceding hi Gita commentary. The following is PYS III 6 Its application is by stages Vyasas commentary: The application of that samyama should be in that stage which is he next to the conquered stage, because nobody who has not conquered the lower stage, can achieve Samyama into the higher stage by jumping over the intermediate stage. So, by reason of its absence, whence can the visibility of his Intellective Vision come? Further the Samyama over the *lower stages* such as the *knowledge of the minds of others*, etc (obviously reffering to siddhis here, my comment) is not necesary for him who is established in the higher stage by virtue of the profound meditation upon Isvara. Why? On account of the achievement of that truth by other means. The conclusion is that the lower Samyama has to preced the higher Samyama unless there is an achievment by other means, e.g. Bhakti to God, which is also recommended by Madhusudana. 'Knowledge of the minds of others' etc is clearly a reference to Siddhis, and is called lower.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
Curits commenting on Turqs experience with Rama - Fred Lenz: So if this teacher had some version of this ability, and you were in deep rapport with him, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think he might have developed some other interesting ways to shift a... Lurk: I have mentioned before that when I read an interview Rama gave back in the early 90's (I believe), I was blown away. The impression I got was that of full blown enlightenment. A second interview six or seven years later, still had, in my opinion, the unmistakeable mark of enlightenment, although it was a little dulled, but enlightenment still intact. That was my impression. Speculating, given the little I know about the guy, it seemed like he pushed the envelope to the extreme, but even for the enlightend, there is only so far you can push it, before you find yourself past the point of no return.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
2007-12-13
Thread
Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
There are several people, teachers for real or presumed, who use the name Rama. Do you have any additional names for this person, their original family name or a website, perhaps with photos to help determine which Rama you are referring to? On 12/13/07, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curits commenting on Turqs experience with Rama - Fred Lenz: So if this teacher had some version of this ability, and you were in deep rapport with him, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think he might have developed some other interesting ways to shift a... Lurk: I have mentioned before that when I read an interview Rama gave back in the early 90's (I believe), I was blown away. The impression I got was that of full blown enlightenment. A second interview six or seven years later, still had, in my opinion, the unmistakeable mark of enlightenment, although it was a little dulled, but enlightenment still intact. That was my impression. Speculating, given the little I know about the guy, it seemed like he pushed the envelope to the extreme, but even for the enlightend, there is only so far you can push it, before you find yourself past the point of no return.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--Dr. Frederick Lenz, aka Rama An online testimonial: Which probably helped me survive six years with Rama, Dr. Fredrick Lenz. I met him in 1984 and was swept up like none of the other organizations was ever able to sweep me up. Even the JWs who got hold of my poor mind when I was young did not get so inside of me as this guy was able to. Before I knew what hit me, I was traveling all over the country, and giving this 'holy' man all of my hard earned cash. I was also able to recruit several people into this organization, which is something I never did in any of the others. I think this shows how much I was enraptured of Rama. After six years, I walked away, never realizing how much he had affected me. I only knew that he was screwing my ex-girlfriend and that she broke up with me because he told her to. I had already moved on, and wasn't that concerned, I didn't have deep relationships or anything like that in those days. But it did get me thinking. . .Friends don't do that to friends. Then I started paying attention to everything else and began to apply the same standards that I lived by for myself, and although I could never be held up as a saint by any stretch of the imagination, I realized that I lived a far more moral life (in that I caused less harm to others) than he did. Boy, did I feel stupid. 39 years has taught me very few truly interesting things, except perhaps one--no one has the answer for me but me. The only thing another person can do is offer perspective. Perspective is not worth slavery. So be careful of gurus bearing gifts :o) - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are several people, teachers for real or presumed, who use the name Rama. Do you have any additional names for this person, their original family name or a website, perhaps with photos to help determine which Rama you are referring to? On 12/13/07, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curits commenting on Turqs experience with Rama - Fred Lenz: So if this teacher had some version of this ability, and you were in deep rapport with him, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think he might have developed some other interesting ways to shift a... Lurk: I have mentioned before that when I read an interview Rama gave back in the early 90's (I believe), I was blown away. The impression I got was that of full blown enlightenment. A second interview six or seven years later, still had, in my opinion, the unmistakeable mark of enlightenment, although it was a little dulled, but enlightenment still intact. That was my impression. Speculating, given the little I know about the guy, it seemed like he pushed the envelope to the extreme, but even for the enlightend, there is only so far you can push it, before you find yourself past the point of no return.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be silly of me not to have noticed the somewhat...uh...angry reactions that come up on this board from time to time when I talk about the weird things (siddhis) I and others exper- ienced around Rama (Frederick Lenz). I haven't read yet the rest of your post, but if you are referring with ..uh angry reactions to me, you are living in a total illusion. I even spelled it out to you and am happy to do it again: I a m n o t a n g r y. :-) Don't believe me? Keep on suggesting the same again and again? Your problem. For me its just passing time, an intelectual discussion, nothing more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What bothers them is that there is a strong like- lihood that Rama was a bit of a charlatan and a bit of a rogue and *none* of the things that they visualize when they think of an enlightened teacher, AND YET HE COULD DO THIS STUFF ANYWAY. Interesting POV. I think I capitulate
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be silly of me not to have noticed the somewhat...uh...angry reactions that come up on this board from time to time when I talk about the weird things (siddhis) I and others exper- ienced around Rama (Frederick Lenz). Here is a speculation as to where they might be coming from. I think a lot of it has to do with Rama's rep. He was vilified in the press as a cult leader, as someone who slept with his female students, and many other things. I can say without reser- vation that many of these things were true, and could add a great number of other stories from my own experience that indicate that the dude was occasionally a real slimeball, with a drug dependency towards the end of his life and an ego on him the size of Texas. HOWEVER, at other times he could meditate so powerfully that if you were in the same room with him, it was almost *impossible* to have a thought; clear, thoughtless samadhi was your *only* option. ALSO, he was able to perform siddhis like levitating, disappearing, flying through the air, opening dimensions to other planes of reality, etc. so powerfully that up to hundreds of people at a time saw and exper- ienced them. He was able to do this not only with students who wanted to believe in these things, but in public talks where half the audience were skeptics. The skeptics saw these things, too. So go figure, eh? I honestly think that what offends a lot of people about the Rama guy and stories of the siddhis that people saw him perform is that they have this idea in their heads that either 1) the ability to perform siddhis is linked to enlightenment, or 2) the those who can perform siddhis are 'supposed to be' more evolved or beyond stuff like sleeping with their students, or 3) both. What bothers them is that there is a strong like- lihood that Rama was a bit of a charlatan and a bit of a rogue and *none* of the things that they visualize when they think of an enlightened teacher, AND YET HE COULD DO THIS STUFF ANYWAY. Welcome to the conundrum. That, as far as I can tell, is the truth about the dude. I was around him for many years, and there is no question in my mind that he was at times a charlatan, at times a slimeball, and at other times able to manifest some of the coolest siddhis in the spiritual canon. Go figure. What does this mean? Well, to me it means that all the stuff about siddhis being of necessity linked to enlightenment are an enormous pile of steaming crap. That's simply not true. Siddhis are siddhis and enlightenment is enlightenment, and there is no one-to-one link between them. Histor- ically, some teachers regarded as enlightened manifested siddhis, and others did not. Equally historically, many of those who can manifest the siddhis are open and honest about the fact that they are *not* enlightened; they just know how to do these siddhis. I've had some limited exper- ience with manifesting minor siddhis myself, and I'm *certainly* not enlightened on any kind of permanent basis. The other thing that drives some people up the wall when I talk about the Rama dude is that he offends them morally. They have major problems with what he represents, and thus they have major problems with believing that he could *also* do something like manifest real siddhis. They'd prefer to believe in something far more unlikely, that he had the ability to somehow hypnotize hundreds of people at once, some of them members of the press. What I'm trying to suggest is that there seems to have been NO PROBLEM with the guy being a slime- ball AND being able to manifest siddhis. It's NOT as simplistic as the idealistic books about these things say it is. It's not an EITHER/OR rela- tionship; its a BOTH/AND relationship. As far as I can tell, the guy could coerce some sweet young female student into sleeping with him one minute and the next minute levitate like gang- busters. For all I know, he could have been able to boink the young student WHILE levitating, although I never saw or heard evidence of this. :-) The bottom line is that from my perspective, siddhis aren't what you idealize them as. They are just *abilities*, abilities that *anyone* can master, whatever their state of consciousness. They have *nothing to do* with state of conscious- ness, or with the morality or immorality of the person who is able to perform them. I understand that this fucks with many people's idealized notions of what the siddhis are and what they mean about the person performing them, but I'm trying to be honest with you here. I don't think that your idealized notions are correct, based on my experience. Being able to perform siddhis doesn't make a person good, and being bad doesn't prevent a person from being able to do them. Used as some kind of measure of a person's enlightenment,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be silly of me not to have noticed the somewhat...uh...angry reactions that come up on this board from time to time when I talk about the weird things (siddhis) I and others exper- ienced around Rama (Frederick Lenz). Here is a speculation as to where they might be coming from. I think a lot of it has to do with Rama's rep. He was vilified in the press as a cult leader, as someone who slept with his female students, and many other things. I can say without reser- vation that many of these things were true, and could add a great number of other stories from my own experience that indicate that the dude was occasionally a real slimeball, with a drug dependency towards the end of his life and an ego on him the size of Texas. HOWEVER, at other times he could meditate so powerfully that if you were in the same room with him, it was almost *impossible* to have a thought; clear, thoughtless samadhi was your *only* option. ALSO, he was able to perform siddhis like levitating, disappearing, flying through the air, opening dimensions to other planes of reality, etc. so powerfully that up to hundreds of people at a time saw and exper- ienced them. He was able to do this not only with students who wanted to believe in these things, but in public talks where half the audience were skeptics. The skeptics saw these things, too. So go figure, eh? I honestly think that what offends a lot of people about the Rama guy and stories of the siddhis that people saw him perform is that they have this idea in their heads that either 1) the ability to perform siddhis is linked to enlightenment, or 2) the those who can perform siddhis are 'supposed to be' more evolved or beyond stuff like sleeping with their students, or 3) both. What bothers them is that there is a strong like- lihood that Rama was a bit of a charlatan and a bit of a rogue and *none* of the things that they visualize when they think of an enlightened teacher, AND YET HE COULD DO THIS STUFF ANYWAY. Welcome to the conundrum. That, as far as I can tell, is the truth about the dude. I was around him for many years, and there is no question in my mind that he was at times a charlatan, at times a slimeball, and at other times able to manifest some of the coolest siddhis in the spiritual canon. Go figure. What does this mean? Well, to me it means that all the stuff about siddhis being of necessity linked to enlightenment are an enormous pile of steaming crap. That's simply not true. Siddhis are siddhis and enlightenment is enlightenment, and there is no one-to-one link between them. Histor- ically, some teachers regarded as enlightened manifested siddhis, and others did not. Equally historically, many of those who can manifest the siddhis are open and honest about the fact that they are *not* enlightened; they just know how to do these siddhis. I've had some limited exper- ience with manifesting minor siddhis myself, and I'm *certainly* not enlightened on any kind of permanent basis. The other thing that drives some people up the wall when I talk about the Rama dude is that he offends them morally. They have major problems with what he represents, and thus they have major problems with believing that he could *also* do something like manifest real siddhis. They'd prefer to believe in something far more unlikely, that he had the ability to somehow hypnotize hundreds of people at once, some of them members of the press. What I'm trying to suggest is that there seems to have been NO PROBLEM with the guy being a slime- ball AND being able to manifest siddhis. It's NOT as simplistic as the idealistic books about these things say it is. It's not an EITHER/OR rela- tionship; its a BOTH/AND relationship. As far as I can tell, the guy could coerce some sweet young female student into sleeping with him one minute and the next minute levitate like gang- busters. For all I know, he could have been able to boink the young student WHILE levitating, although I never saw or heard evidence of this. :-) The bottom line is that from my perspective, siddhis aren't what you idealize them as. They are just *abilities*, abilities that *anyone* can master, whatever their state of consciousness. They have *nothing to do* with state of conscious- ness, or with the morality or immorality of the person who is able to perform them. I understand that this fucks with many people's idealized notions of what the siddhis are and what they mean about the person performing them, but I'm trying to be honest with you here. I don't think that your idealized notions are correct, based on my experience. Being able to perform siddhis doesn't make a person good, and being bad doesn't prevent a person from being able to do them. Used as some kind of measure of a person's enlightenment,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
Any more exactitude to the answer, especially down to a yes/no is too much ensconced in a materialistic worldview. The rarity of siddhis makes them more mysterious, it's the loving intimacy that matters most, devotion. When it comes to demonstrating sidhis, yes/no is the ONLY criteria that matter. And it matters even more if a professional magician is in the room cuz they can smell the bullshit that Buddha only dreamed of. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, of course, proximity to enlightenment will facilitate siddhis, sought or not. For some people, the burgeoning presence of siddhis is a confirmation that god exists, or leads them in that direction, that the love they've been searching for has finally come to reside in their heart, and the siddhis that have come with that are simply instruments of performing even better service for others, many of whom may not even know the yogi involved. Any more exactitude to the answer, especially down to a yes/no is too much ensconced in a materialistic worldview. The rarity of siddhis makes them more mysterious, it's the loving intimacy that matters most, devotion. People in love with each other also develop siddhis, some times confined only with each other, some times benevolent towards the whole world. Many enterprising people have siddhis, often through most of their life, though do not have the good company of others to share these matters with more openly. *When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Mount Grdhrakuta, he held up a flower to his listeners. Everyone was silent. Only Mahakashyapa broke into a broad smile. The Buddha said, **I have the True Dharma Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine. This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa .* On 12/12/07, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be silly of me not to have noticed the somewhat...uh...angry reactions that come up on this board from time to time when I talk about the weird things (siddhis) I and others exper- ienced around Rama (Frederick Lenz). Here is a speculation as to where they might be coming from. I think a lot of it has to do with Rama's rep. He was vilified in the press as a cult leader, as someone who slept with his female students, and many other things. I can say without reser- vation that many of these things were true, and could add a great number of other stories from my own experience that indicate that the dude was occasionally a real slimeball, with a drug dependency towards the end of his life and an ego on him the size of Texas. HOWEVER, at other times he could meditate so powerfully that if you were in the same room with him, it was almost *impossible* to have a thought; clear, thoughtless samadhi was your *only* option. ALSO, he was able to perform siddhis like levitating, disappearing, flying through the air, opening dimensions to other planes of reality, etc. so powerfully that up to hundreds of people at a time saw and exper- ienced them. He was able to do this not only with students who wanted to believe in these things, but in public talks where half the audience were skeptics. The skeptics saw these things, too. So go figure, eh? I honestly think that what offends a lot of people about the Rama guy and stories of the siddhis that people saw him perform is that they have this idea in their heads that either 1) the ability to perform siddhis is linked to enlightenment, or 2) the those who can perform siddhis are 'supposed to be' more evolved or beyond stuff like sleeping with their students, or 3) both. What bothers them is that there is a strong like- lihood that Rama was a bit of a charlatan and a bit of a rogue and *none* of the things that they visualize when they think of an enlightened teacher, AND YET HE COULD DO THIS STUFF ANYWAY. Welcome to the conundrum. That, as far as I can tell, is the truth about the dude. I was around him for many years, and there is no question in my mind that he was at times a charlatan, at times a slimeball, and at other times able to manifest some of the coolest siddhis in the spiritual canon. Go figure. What does this mean? Well, to me it means that all the stuff about siddhis being of necessity linked to enlightenment are an enormous pile of steaming crap. That's simply not true. Siddhis are siddhis and enlightenment is enlightenment, and there is no one-to-one link between them. Histor- ically, some teachers regarded as enlightened manifested siddhis, and others did not. Equally historically, many of those who can manifest the siddhis are open and honest about the fact that they are *not* enlightened; they just know how to
