Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 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?]

There are several people, teachers for real or presumed, who use the name
Rama.
Do you have any additional names for this person, their original family name
or a website,
perhaps with photos to help determine which Rama you are referring to?



On 12/13/07, lurkernomore20002000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curits commenting on Turqs experience with Rama - Fred Lenz:
>
> So if this teacher had some version of this ability, and you were in
> deep rapport with him, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to
> think he might have developed some other interesting ways to shift a...
>
> Lurk:
> I have mentioned before that when I read an interview Rama gave back
> in the early 90's (I believe), I was blown away.  The impression I got
> was that of full blown enlightenment.  A second interview six or seven
> years later, still had, in my opinion, the unmistakeable mark of
> enlightenment, although it was a little dulled, but enlightenment
> still intact.  That was my impression. Speculating, given the little I
> know about the guy, it seemed like he pushed the envelope to the
> extreme, but even for the enlightend, there is only so far you can
> push it, before you find yourself past the point of no return.
>
>

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

[Vaj]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:29 AM, cardemaister wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote:
>
> > Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not
restricted to
> > Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to
attain
> > Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found
that he
> > said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of
Samyama,
> > but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The
Siddhis were
> > also called lower forms of attainmenment)
>
>
> I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama
on
> atma (atma-samyama).

Just occurred to me: perhaps Sanskrit compound words with 'saMyama'
as their last component are not necessarily always /tatpuruSa-s/...



Context is certainly important and it appears samyama just refers  
generically to the dharana-dhyana-samadhi triad but in the gudhartha- 
dipika it's a compound "atma-samyama" which is rather specific. Also  
"siddhi" can have differing meanings as well. In some instances  
"siddhi" merely means "success", as opposed to "asiddhi", failure.

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

[Vaj]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote:


Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to
Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain
Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he
said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama,
but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were
also called lower forms of attainmenment)



I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama on  
atma (atma-samyama). You seem to be changing that message-- but if  
you have a quote or a verse I'd like to hear it.