--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <babajii_99@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "at_man_and_brahman" > > <at_man_and_brahman@> wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > * RC, who was in a temporary false unity, rather than THE WHOLE THING, > > > THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of distinguishing between the > > > two, which raises its own questions > > > > DID MMY declare that RC was in Unity, or simply that his experiences of UC > > were valid? > > > > 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). > > > > Lawson > > > No one can perform any of the sidhis on demand...the sidhis come when needed > by nature... > Maharishi himself could not perform the 'flying sutra'...this has nothing to > do with enlightenment...
FWIW, according to Patañjali, doSa-biija-kSaya (defect/bondage-seed-destruction; conditio sine qua non of kaivalya?) depends on ones being virakta towards the supreme(?) siddhi, omnipotence (sarva-bhaava-adhi_SThaatRtvam: supremacy [adhi_SThaatRtvam] over all [sarva] forms and states of existence[bhaava]) and omniscience (sarva-jñaatRtvam)! tad-vairaagyaad api doSa-biija-kSaye kaivalyam. I think it's impossible to know for sure whether one is non-attached to those two 'omnis' unless one has "experienced" them! YMMV, of course...
