--- 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, > the siddhis are just as big a failure as any > other "measurement" you might imagine. >
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
