--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Another wrinkle: what exactly does "able to do > > the siddhis" actually mean in the context of > > Unity consciousness? Does it really mean "on > > demand"? > > This ends up in the broader question of free will and determinism in > general in any state of consciousness. Nice point about the paradox. > > I recognize, and others have pointed out, that MMY is unique in his > perspective of siddhis. Many other teachers claim they are > impediments to growth, or at lest distractions. But in his system > they serve a much more interesting role for me. They are indications > that one has gained certain masteries over the laws of nature. I > think they are important to distinguish "higher" states from just a > flowery description of what ordinary, aware people are walking around > in every day. Since he does demonstrate siddhis at their incomplete > hopping level, I can't see why he would not show the real deal. I > think it was commendable of him to use the performance of siddhis as > tests of consciousness. It gives a falsifiable standard.
Coming back to this, because I think it's an important point: If Unity consciousness is as MMY defines it, and if he's in Unity consciousness, it isn't *up* to MMY, independently of nature, whether to perform siddhis. It's nature's call. So it wouldn't really be a falsifiable standard after all. And yes, it's all very much wrapped up in the free will/determinism paradox. I don't personally have any problem with the idea that my sense of free will is an illusion--that is, my "small self"'s sense of free will. I think we assume we have free will because we're dimly intuiting that the Self has free will. I think I've posted this quote from Schroedinger here before, but it's germane to this discussion: Erwin Schroedinger, in an essay called "The I That Is God," wrote: ...The space-time events in the body of a living being which correspond to the activity of its mind, to its self-conscious or any other actions, are...if not strictly deterministic at any rate statistico-deterministic....Let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about "declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism." For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as warranted by direct introspection.... Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature [determinism]. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them [free will]. The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws of Nature. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/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/
