[FairfieldLife] Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?

[TurquoiseB]

It would be silly of me not to have noticed the
somewhat...uh...angry reactions that come up on
this board from time to time when I talk about
the weird things (siddhis) I and others exper-
ienced around Rama (Frederick Lenz). Here is a
speculation as to where they might be coming
from.

I think a lot of it has to do with Rama's rep.
He was vilified in the press as a cult leader,
as someone who slept with his female students,
and many other things. I can say without reser-
vation that many of these things were true, and
could add a great number of other stories from
my own experience that indicate that the dude
was occasionally a real slimeball, with a drug
dependency towards the end of his life and an
ego on him the size of Texas.

HOWEVER, at other times he could meditate so
powerfully that if you were in the same room 
with him, it was almost *impossible* to have a
thought; clear, thoughtless samadhi was your
*only* option. ALSO, he was able to perform 
siddhis like levitating, disappearing, flying
through the air, opening dimensions to other
planes of reality, etc. so powerfully that up
to hundreds of people at a time saw and exper-
ienced them. He was able to do this not only
with students who wanted to believe in these
things, but in public talks where half the
audience were skeptics. The skeptics saw these
things, too.

So go figure, eh?

I honestly think that what offends a lot of
people about the Rama guy and stories of the
siddhis that people saw him perform is that
they have this idea in their heads that either
1) the ability to perform siddhis is linked to
enlightenment, or 2) the those who can perform
siddhis are 'supposed to be' more evolved or
beyond stuff like sleeping with their students,
or 3) both.

What bothers them is that there is a strong like-
lihood that Rama was a bit of a charlatan and a
bit of a rogue and *none* of the things that they
visualize when they think of an enlightened teacher,
AND YET HE COULD DO THIS STUFF ANYWAY.

Welcome to the conundrum. That, as far as I can
tell, is the truth about the dude. I was around
him for many years, and there is no question in 
my mind that he was at times a charlatan, at times
a slimeball, and at other times able to manifest
some of the coolest siddhis in the spiritual canon.
Go figure.

What does this mean? Well, to me it means that
all the stuff about siddhis being of necessity
linked to enlightenment are an enormous pile of
steaming crap. That's simply not true. Siddhis are
siddhis and enlightenment is enlightenment, and
there is no one-to-one link between them. Histor-
ically, some teachers regarded as enlightened
manifested siddhis, and others did not. Equally
historically, many of those who can manifest the
siddhis are open and honest about the fact that
they are *not* enlightened; they just know how
to do these siddhis. I've had some limited exper-
ience with manifesting minor siddhis myself, and
I'm *certainly* not enlightened on any kind of
permanent basis.

The other thing that drives some people up the
wall when I talk about the Rama dude is that he
offends them morally. They have major problems 
with what he represents, and thus they have major
problems with believing that he could *also* do
something like manifest real siddhis. They'd 
prefer to believe in something far more unlikely,
that he had the ability to somehow hypnotize 
hundreds of people at once, some of them members
of the press. 

What I'm trying to suggest is that there seems to
have been NO PROBLEM with the guy being a slime-
ball AND being able to manifest siddhis. It's NOT
as simplistic as the idealistic books about these
things say it is. It's not an EITHER/OR rela-
tionship; its a BOTH/AND relationship. As far 
as I can tell, the guy could coerce some sweet 
young female student into sleeping with him one 
minute and the next minute levitate like gang-
busters. For all I know, he could have been able 
to boink the young student WHILE levitating, 
although I never saw or heard evidence of this.  :-)

The bottom line is that from my perspective, 
siddhis aren't what you idealize them as. They are
just *abilities*, abilities that *anyone* can 
master, whatever their state of consciousness.
They have *nothing to do* with state of conscious-
ness, or with the morality or immorality of the
person who is able to perform them.

I understand that this fucks with many people's
idealized notions of what the siddhis are and 
what they mean about the person performing them,
but I'm trying to be honest with you here. I don't
think that your idealized notions are correct,
based on my experience. 

Being able to perform siddhis doesn't make a 
person good, and being bad doesn't prevent a 
person from being able to do them. Used as some
kind of measure of a person's enlightenment,
the siddhis are just as big a failure as any
other measurement you might imagine.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?

[Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?]

Well, of course, proximity to enlightenment will facilitate
siddhis, sought or not.  For some people, the burgeoning
presence of siddhis is a confirmation that god exists, or
leads them in that direction, that the love they've been
searching for has finally come to reside in their heart,
and the siddhis that have come with that are simply
instruments of performing even better service for others,
many of whom may not even know the yogi involved.

Any more exactitude to the answer, especially down to a
yes/no is too much ensconced in a materialistic worldview.
The rarity of siddhis makes them more mysterious, it's the
loving intimacy that matters most, devotion.

People in love with each other also develop siddhis, some
times confined only with each other, some times benevolent
towards the whole world.  Many enterprising people have
siddhis, often through most of their life, though do not
have the good company of others to share these matters with
more openly.

*When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Mount Grdhrakuta, he
held up a flower to his listeners.  Everyone was
silent. Only Mahakashyapa broke into a broad
smile.  The Buddha said,  **I have the True Dharma
Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form
of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate,
independent of words and transmitted beyond
doctrine.  This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa .*



On 12/12/07, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 It would be silly of me not to have noticed the
 somewhat...uh...angry reactions that come up on
 this board from time to time when I talk about
 the weird things (siddhis) I and others exper-
 ienced around Rama (Frederick Lenz). Here is a
 speculation as to where they might be coming
 from.

 I think a lot of it has to do with Rama's rep.
 He was vilified in the press as a cult leader,
 as someone who slept with his female students,
 and many other things. I can say without reser-
 vation that many of these things were true, and
 could add a great number of other stories from
 my own experience that indicate that the dude
 was occasionally a real slimeball, with a drug
 dependency towards the end of his life and an
 ego on him the size of Texas.

 HOWEVER, at other times he could meditate so
 powerfully that if you were in the same room
 with him, it was almost *impossible* to have a
 thought; clear, thoughtless samadhi was your
 *only* option. ALSO, he was able to perform
 siddhis like levitating, disappearing, flying
 through the air, opening dimensions to other
 planes of reality, etc. so powerfully that up
 to hundreds of people at a time saw and exper-
 ienced them. He was able to do this not only
 with students who wanted to believe in these
 things, but in public talks where half the
 audience were skeptics. The skeptics saw these
 things, too.

 So go figure, eh?

 I honestly think that what offends a lot of
 people about the Rama guy and stories of the
 siddhis that people saw him perform is that
 they have this idea in their heads that either
 1) the ability to perform siddhis is linked to
 enlightenment, or 2) the those who can perform
 siddhis are 'supposed to be' more evolved or
 beyond stuff like sleeping with their students,
 or 3) both.

 What bothers them is that there is a strong like-
 lihood that Rama was a bit of a charlatan and a
 bit of a rogue and *none* of the things that they
 visualize when they think of an enlightened teacher,
 AND YET HE COULD DO THIS STUFF ANYWAY.

 Welcome to the conundrum. That, as far as I can
 tell, is the truth about the dude. I was around
 him for many years, and there is no question in
 my mind that he was at times a charlatan, at times
 a slimeball, and at other times able to manifest
 some of the coolest siddhis in the spiritual canon.
 Go figure.

 What does this mean? Well, to me it means that
 all the stuff about siddhis being of necessity
 linked to enlightenment are an enormous pile of
 steaming crap. That's simply not true. Siddhis are
 siddhis and enlightenment is enlightenment, and
 there is no one-to-one link between them. Histor-
 ically, some teachers regarded as enlightened
 manifested siddhis, and others did not. Equally
 historically, many of those who can manifest the
 siddhis are open and honest about the fact that
 they are *not* enlightened; they just know how
 to do these siddhis. I've had some limited exper-
 ience with manifesting minor siddhis myself, and
 I'm *certainly* not enlightened on any kind of
 permanent basis.

 The other thing that drives some people up the
 wall when I talk about the Rama dude is that he
 offends them morally. They have major problems
 with what he represents, and thus they have major
 problems with believing that he could *also* do
 something like manifest real siddhis. They'd
 prefer to believe in something far more unlikely,
 that he had the ability to somehow hypnotize
 hundreds of people at once, some of them members
 of the press.

 What I'm trying to suggest is that there seems to
 have been NO PROBLEM