--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > I would like my comment to be separated from any connection with > > > evaluating Jim personally. In my communications he has passed the > > > much more important test in my world of being a nice, sincere guy. > > > > > > I thought the Vedic System of MMY included the Yoga Sutras as the > > > tests for consciousness. At least that is how he presented it to us. > > > They were markers on the path, like belts in martial arts. It seems > > > reasonable that the criteria included in the system should be met. > > > > Well, duh...he was *selling* them for thousands of dollars. :-) > > > > More seriously, yes I think you're correct that he seems > > to hold the siddhis up as some kind of 'standard' for > > enlightenment, but he is one of the only spiritual > > teachers I've encountered who does. Without exception, > > all of the others I've seen personally have said just > > the opposite, that there is no connection whatsoever > > between the ability to manifest siddhis and enlightenment. > > Just FYI. > > > > Of course, that's not what he says. > > What he (MMY) says is that UNLESS you are able to do the siddhis, you can't claim Unity, > not that the ability to [at least occassionally] do a siddhi means that you are in Unity.
Another wrinkle: what exactly does "able to do the siddhis" actually mean in the context of Unity consciousness? Does it really mean "on demand"? If Unity consciousness is as MMY describes it, wouldn't it be Nature that "decides" whether a siddhi is to occur in a specific situation? Wouldn't it be Nature that "decides" whether a person even has the thought to perform a siddhi, let alone whether it gets performed? By what criteria might Nature make these "decisions" in a particular case? If Unity consciousness is simply the experiential realization of what is "always already" the case for everyone, then what's the difference between "being able" and "not being able" to perform a siddhi? Seems to me that in the context of Unity consciousness, the whole thing gets into a Self-referential tangle, and contradictions and paradoxes and infinite regresses are inevitable when we try to analyze it on an intellectual basis. So why, then, would MMY give an intellectual description of the nature of the siddhis and their relationship to states of consciousness? Such descriptions can only be given and received on the level of the "mistake of the intellect." > > He also says that perfection of any of the sidhis means that all are perfected, but aside > from a few famous avatars, how many people have ever been said to be perfect in any > way? > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
