--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > Seems to me that MMY covered his behind pretty well about > > "the real thing" claim by claiming that only if you could > > perform any and all of the siddhis perfectly, on demand, > > could you justify making the claim that you were truly in > > UC (or at least perfect CC or whatever... nods to Vaj). > > The siddhis programme has been around for what - 35 years or > so? To what extent have people's performance 'improved' over > this period? Not all traditions seem to consider these kinds > of performances or abilities as necessary for enlightenment. > In Vasistha's Yoga there is the following comment: > > I shall now describe to you the method of gaining what is > attainable (siddhi or psychic powers) towards which the > sage of self-knowledge is indifferent, which the deluded > person considers desirable and which one who is intent on > the cultivation of self-knowledge is keen to avoid.
(Um, OK, so why are you telling us how to gain them, then, Vasistha? Could there be some context missing here? Is "method" the important word?) > It would seem the idea that siddhi performance is not > universally regarded as necessary for enlightenment; other > traditions eschew them as well regarding them as a > distraction from the so-called path. > > In stating that perfection of these things is a necessary > requirement if they are not really necessary would serve > to keep all those who had not yet gained perfection in this > matter under the thumb of the elites in an organization > because they could never prove they have succeeded in the > orgs main goal, i.e., enlightenment. My understanding has always been that, according to MMY, the purpose of practicing the TM-Sidhis techniques was not to be able to perform the siddhis but to attain Unity Consciousness, the performances being byproducts of that process. I have the sneaking suspicion we're missing something with regard to MMY's comment cited above. Or perhaps we're adding something to it that wasn't intended. MZ pointed out earlier that "on demand," i.e., as if via the individual will, makes no sense in the context of MMY's definition of Unity Consciousness.
