--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Why is levitation considered to be a 'requirement' for unity > > consciousness? No other tradition I have heard of has such a > > requirement for enlightenment. Maharishi said Krisnamurtu was > > in unity, but Krishnamurti never levitated. > > And you assume that because he never did, he couldn't?
No, I just said he did not, no assumption. I would not know if he could or could not, but Krishnamurti did not seem to be the sort that would have been interested in this. Your response did make me want to see if there was anything about Krishnamurti and levitation and I found this very interesting passage in Google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=0dHP2f_6k4YC&pg=PA132&dq=Krishnamurti+AND+levitation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8zOrT4OGDsf0gAf41_SnBA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAQ It is a rather interesting story. I was not aware of this at all. Thanks for the prodding. > > I think you misconstrue the term "requirement." Fertility > is a requirement for biological reproduction. Obviously > one would not assume on the basis of that statement that > an individual was infertile because he or she had no > biological offspring. Correct, you would need other evidence to demonstrate that. Note that in the story at the link above, having siddhis does not necessarily seem to correlate with enlightenment. > > In any case, a statement such as "the person in Unity > Consciousness has the ability to perform all the siddhis > at will" is tricky. In a sense it's tautological. May be.
