Siddhis -- so what?
TurquoiseB
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>>>Personally, I would like to see someone,anyone, TM or not,
>>>demonstrate an unambiguous sidhi. It would help TM(org) by
>>>showing that one of their marketed programs really works.
>>>And it would make my personal reality a lot richer.
I said:
>> Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. It changes nothing.
>>
>> The value of seeing siddhis performed is that it forces
>> you to deal with the fact that -- no matter how many years
>> you claimed to believe they were possible -- you really
>> didn't. And you still don't, even though they are happen-
>> ing right in front of you. It's an interesting exercise.
>> I recommend it.
Stephen again:
>Well, then I am certainly curious about what "unambiguous sidhi"
>you witnessed. That would be physical phenomena, not "hopping",
>since that is highly debated. Even hovering would suffice, a
>clear denial of the law of gravity. There is always a split
>second when an object reaches the top of its arc before gravity
>takes over. So a few seconds would be enough. Would you care
>to describe your experience?
Not really. My experience was not in the TM context and is thus
possibly inappropriate for this forum. Suffice it to say that over an
extended number of years I witnessed almost every siddhi
described by Patanjali and quite a few that were not. Big deal.
What *may* be appropriate for this forum is a discussion of what
the VALUE of witnessing the performance of siddhis is and is not.
Let's say you're sitting in a lecture somewhere, say in a brightly-
lit room in the L.A. Convention Center and Swami Meshugananda
demonstrates something flashy like rising up into the air and hang-
out there for an extended period of time. You're right there, in the
front row. You rub your eyes, you open and close them, you shift
in your chair and change perspective to make sure no trick is
involved, but sho 'nuff, the Swamidude is just hanging there in midair,
in exactly the way that a brick doesn't.
Great. You have witnessed a siddhi. What have you learned?
1. You have learned that siddhis are possible.
2. You have learned that the description of the universe that has
been supplied to you since birth is, at best, incomplete. Chances
are it is flat-out wrong.
3. If you are smart, you have learned not to assume that the things
you *believe* to be true are, in fact, true.
All of these are valuable lessons, and in fact are the reasons
given in Tibetan works for the demonstration of siddhis. But what
have you learned about the Swami who is hanging out in midair,
smiling to beat all?
1. You have learned that Swamiji knows how to do something that
you do not.
End of list.
In my opinion, you have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about
Swami's state of consciousness. Nada. Rien. Zilch. Bupkus.
There are many who equate the ability to perform miracles (siddhis)
as an indicator of an advanced state of consciousness, possibly
even an indicator of enlightenment itself. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
In India and Nepal -- even these days -- you can find, with very little
difficulty, folks who can perform siddhis. Most of them, to their
credit, make no claim associating this skill with their own enlighten-
ment. The performance of siddhis is, in my opinion, a skillset unto
itself. It may be related to having a certain base level of personal
power, consciousness, and intention, but it (again, IMO) has no
direct relationship to enlightenment. Enlightenment is its own
universe. Siddhis are just a minor, out-of-the-way galaxy, a galaxy
which is not visited by all enlightened beings. Immigration and
tourism to this galaxy are also not *restricted* to the enlightened.
In my opinion, the ability to perform siddhis says absolutely NADA
about a person's state of consciousness. Those who believe other-
wise are welcome both to their opinion and to the state of vulner-
ability and gullibility that results from that opinion.
Barry Wright
"I remain just one thing, and one thing only -- and that is a clown.
It places me on a far higher plane than any politician or religious
leader." - Charlie Chaplin
Lawson English
TurquoiseB <turqu...@aol.com> said:
>In my opinion, the ability to perform siddhis says absolutely NADA
>about a person's state of consciousness. Those who believe other-
>wise are welcome both to their opinion and to the state of vulner-
>ability and gullibility that results from that opinion.
>
Any siddhi? No. EVERY Siddhi?
I think that that is a different kettle of fish. Certainly, MMY has
indicated that it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Want Apple to license Cyberdog for third-party development? Go to:
<http://www.pcsincnet.com/petition.html>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Milnes
Stephen seems bent on requiring evidence of Siddhis and seems to relate this
to some proof of the validity of TM and/or Maharishi's teachings in general.
Whereas this imagined link is spurious, many of us that have "just" learnt
TM (i.e. irrespective of the TM Sidhi programme) have had direct,
spontaneous experience of Siddhi "moments". I recounted some such personal
moments here a while ago.
Others, with no previous connection with TM or any other spiritual practice,
have also experienced such abilities.
My net-friend Steve Nanninga describes such an experience very nicely on the
following Web site. http://www.angstromprod.com/xfiles/bang.html It
describes a spontaneous experiential learning event triggered by a thought
experiment (as Einstein was reputed to carry out), his on the construct of
the atom.
The history of the world is littered with such examples. I remember being
touched by reading about a moment when the author looked at a piece of mica
and lost all sense of object and subject and just experienced the stone.
I once had an similar experience when I went on a Panchakarma week. During
one of the massage sessions, I became unable to distinguish between myself
and one of the masseurs and the massage.
I wish that everyone could experience such extended reality. I'd certainly
like to more often than I have. I'm more likely to do so by doing TM than
without doing it, that's for sure.
Brian
pd...@duff-family.com
In article <199806030007...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
turqu...@aol.com (TurquoiseB) pduffed:
>
> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
> >>>Personally, I would like to see someone,anyone, TM or not,
> >>>demonstrate an unambiguous sidhi. It would help TM(org) by
> >>>showing that one of their marketed programs really works.
> >>>And it would make my personal reality a lot richer.
>
> I said:
> >> Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. It changes nothing.
Pip, pip! And a side of cheeri-O!
Watching a sidhi being demonstrated satisfies some sense
or morbid curiousity, but that's about it. The only real
news re: sidhis is the very first time you hear that such things
are reported to happen. It doesn't matter whether you believe it
or not, but simply the process of hearing such news results in the
creation of a gap of amazement, wherein critial thinking is suspended
for a twinkling. A gap which is soon filled in by doubt and derision.
But the creation of that gap and the experience of it before it gets
trashed by our knowledge of How Things Really Have to Work is sufficient
to fuel a pursuit that can last a lifetime; a pursuit to "know",
whatever that means, whether phenomena such as sidhis can really happen.
And a seeker is born.
P Duff
Powered by Antihistamines
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Lawson English
pd...@duff-family.com said:
>And a seeker is born.
>
>P Duff
>Powered by Antihistamines
Have you tried ginger? A tiny amount in tea or lemonade can work wonders on
a temporary basis.
Judy Stein
In article <199806030007...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
turqu...@aol.com (TurquoiseB) wrote:
<snip>
> There are many who equate the ability to perform miracles (siddhis)
> as an indicator of an advanced state of consciousness, possibly
> even an indicator of enlightenment itself. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
As far as I'm aware, the only definitive thing MMY says about
this is that the person in Unity consciousness will have command
of the full range of siddhis at their ultimate stage of
development.
That leaves a lot of room for in-between possibilities and, as I
also suggested to Stephen, means that the performance of siddhis
cannot be considered proof of a person's state of consciousness.
In fact, the primary reason for performing siddhis, as I
understand it, according to MMY, is to demonstrate to *oneself*
that these abilities are inherent in the nervous system, that
one's own consciousness is the "home of all the laws of nature."
On the other hand, MMY does say that the ability to perform the
Patanjali siddhis used in the TM-Sidhis program via the technique
of sanyama (these qualifications may be significant in the
present context) involves being able to access the "junction
point" between the active mind and pure consciusness, and the
degree of performance is thus contingent on "the degree to which
the mind has become established in the field of pure
consciousness," according to Keith Wallace.
<snip>
> Siddhis are just a minor, out-of-the-way galaxy, a galaxy
> which is not visited by all enlightened beings.
It may not be *visited* by all enlightened beings, but (at least
according to MMY) it is within their range. Whether they bother
to visit it depends on a lot of other things.
> In my opinion, the ability to perform siddhis says absolutely NADA
> about a person's state of consciousness.
"Absolutely NADA" may be a bit too, er, absolute, but the basic
principle is sound.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@panix.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judy Stein
In article <896903227.20629.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
"Brian Milnes" <b_mi...@ind-tech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Stephen seems bent on requiring evidence of Siddhis and seems to relate this
> to some proof of the validity of TM and/or Maharishi's teachings in general.
>
> Whereas this imagined link is spurious, many of us that have "just" learnt
> TM (i.e. irrespective of the TM Sidhi programme) have had direct,
> spontaneous experience of Siddhi "moments". I recounted some such personal
> moments here a while ago.
>
> Others, with no previous connection with TM or any other spiritual practice,
> have also experienced such abilities.
Well, let's not get things even more confused here.
The link isn't "spurious," it's just not as cut-and-dried as
Stephen imagines.
The *ability* to perform *all* the siddhis specified by Patanjali
in their *fullest* development is, according to Maharishi, a
feature of Unity consciousness. In theory, this should mean the
individual could demonstrate them to observers, but that she
*could* doesn't mean she *would*.
Likewise, as Brian suggests, some siddhis in some stage of
development may be accessible to those who are not in Unity
consciousness.
The bottom line is that demonstration of siddhis doesn't prove
enlightenment, and nondemonstration of siddhis doesn't prove
nonenlightenment.
As Barry pointed out, demonstration of any siddhis by anyone does
prove the strict materialist interpretation of reality is
incomplete.
Perhaps a much more important point is that the reason for
practicing Patanjali's siddhis techniques is NOT to achieve
powers, and *certainly* not for the purpose of being able to
demonstrate them to the curious (although this may occur from
time to time under specific circumstances).
> My net-friend Steve Nanninga describes such an experience very nicely on the
> following Web site. http://www.angstromprod.com/xfiles/bang.html It
> describes a spontaneous experiential learning event triggered by a thought
> experiment (as Einstein was reputed to carry out), his on the construct of
> the atom.
>
> The history of the world is littered with such examples. I remember being
> touched by reading about a moment when the author looked at a piece of mica
> and lost all sense of object and subject and just experienced the stone.
>
> I once had an similar experience when I went on a Panchakarma week. During
> one of the massage sessions, I became unable to distinguish between myself
> and one of the masseurs and the massage.
These are indeed experiences of higher consciousness, but they
are not necessarily experiences of siddhis *per se*. We
shouldn't use the term "siddhis" to include any and all expanded
experiences of reality.
Stephen Harris
Judy Stein wrote:
>
> In article <896903227.20629.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Brian Milnes" <b_mi...@ind-tech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Stephen seems bent on requiring evidence of Siddhis and seems to relate this
> > to some proof of the validity of TM and/or Maharishi's teachings in general.
Yes, because MMY incorporates Patanjali. And this requires a way
for the mind to act upon matter. And from there that the universe
is permeated by consciousness. An unambiguous physical sidhi
proves this. At this point most TMers are relying of faith
that this is an accurate depiction of reality and having to
believe that the subjective experiences of joy and/or consciousness
expansion demonstrate the totality of the MMY/Patanjali viewpoint.
> >
> > Whereas this imagined link is spurious, many of us that have "just"
> The link isn't "spurious," it's just not as cut-and-dried as
> Stephen imagines.
I snipped some things that I think are true but just not
relevant. He thinks it is "spurious" because his life is
unexamined. You see it as more important, but I would use
the word crucial, rather than the term cut-and-dried.
This reflects upon your own degree of self-examination.
You said that you would not be sure if you would choose
to see a sidhi(of the psyche boggling type) demonstrated.
I have asked myself that question and come to the answer,
yes I would want to see it. What I see as spiritual values,
courage and honesty, are involved here. I see it as a crucial
commitment to facing truth, as seeing reality as it is. IMO
turning away from such a challenge is a decision to languish
in illusion or delusion; to remain bound by karma.
And I think it speaks to unity. Instead of having conflict
between the intellectual belief and the belief held in the
belly, one has the opportunity to bring them into alignment.
It is a cut and dried choice for me, because I do not fear
it would desinterate my psche but liberate it. I can also
see how a person who fears such a choice should rightfully
avoid it as an actual fear rather than an imaginary fear.
I think you have a fear that shapes your intellectual responses.
> The bottom line is that demonstration of siddhis doesn't prove
> enlightenment, and nondemonstration of siddhis doesn't prove
> nonenlightenment.
That is right. But it does prove a conscious universe. Which
is far more important than whether this or that person is
enlightened. Caring about who is a Saint is like caring about
sidhis for their own value in accomplishing mundane tasks.
>
> As Barry pointed out, demonstration of any siddhis by anyone does
> prove the strict materialist interpretation of reality is
> incomplete.
>
You also had a quote by MMY that supported this position.
One gets to *know* something in the same sense one knows
there are birds and trees. And it moves beyond people
comparing subjective experiences and saying we are agreeing
on an objective reality. They are drawing a conclusion.
People agreeing on trees existing objectively is direct perception.
Rishis that were born enlightened as well as spontaneous
enlightenment require believing whay somebody says about it.
It is not something we can see and believe like levitation.
Without a demonstration of a physical sidhi, people are in
the position of using a technique(meditation) which they
do not know will work to read a goal not know to exist.
With a demonstration, people could still be unsure of
the technique but they would know the goal of realizing
expanded states of awareness which have objective reality, exist.
So a physical sidhi eliminates more than half of the source
of skepticism. You only have to worry about the demonstrator
telling you the truth about the technique they used. If both
a TMer or a non-TMer say the technique is meditation, one
does not have to be concerned with whether the person involved
is spiritual. You know that meditation can be used for spiritual
purposes, and by this I mean coming to know that the universe
is permeated by consciousness rather than a strictly materialist
view. Why the person wants sidhis, is a side issue.
P Duff
Lawson English wrote:
>
> pd...@duff-family.com said:
>
> >And a seeker is born.
> >
> >P Duff
> >Powered by Antihistamines
>
> Have you tried ginger? A tiny amount in tea or lemonade can work wonders on
> a temporary basis.
>
Thanks for the advice. I'll consider it,
but I gotta tell you, the idea of pouring tea or lemonade
up my nose doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun.
P Duff
Made More Sense on Antihistamines
Lawson English
P Duff <pd...@duff-family.com> said:
>Thanks for the advice. I'll consider it,
>but I gotta tell you, the idea of pouring tea or lemonade
>up my nose doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun.
>
>P Duff
>Made More Sense on Antihistamines
Use a straw, obviously...
<snort>
Stephen Harris
> > In article <896903227.20629.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > "Brian Milnes" <b_mi...@ind-tech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen seems bent on requiring evidence of Siddhis and seems to relate this
> > > to some proof of the validity of TM and/or Maharishi's teachings in general.
You also mention this connection is "spurious". I am including an
url from someone who favors TM that discusses why this is important.
Judy Stein
In article <3579D1...@pacbell.net>,
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article <896903227.20629.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > > "Brian Milnes" <b_mi...@ind-tech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stephen seems bent on requiring evidence of Siddhis and
> > > > seems to relate this to some proof of the validity of TM and/or
> > > > Maharishi's teachings in general.
>
> You also mention this connection is "spurious". I am including an
> url from someone who favors TM that discusses why this is important.
But note that what the writer of the essay on the URL emphasizes
most strongly is to *know oneself*. He doesn't say anything
about holding demonstrations to convince skeptics. It's all
about personal exploration.
The only way to validate TM and Maharishi's teachings is in your
own consciousness.
Otherwise there will always be questions: maybe it was a trick;
maybe I and all the others watching were somehow hypnotized.
The writer's whole point is that consciousness and subjectivity,
not matter and objectivity, are primary. It really doesn't make
sense, then, to demand that this be proved on an objective basis;
the means of proof are incompatible with the very thing one is
seeking to prove.
James Duffy
Dan wrote in message <357b52ec...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
>Are there any TM Siddhas that can demonstrate anything other than a
>hop? I have been meditating and involved with the Movement for a long
>time and have had many good experiences, but it dismays me somewhat
>that after all these years no-one seems to be very enlightened. I
>think that MMY tells us that the path is easy so that we won't be
>discouraged. I think that it's long and arduous, at least that's my
>experience. Knowing that there are a few accomplished flyers and not
>just muscular hoppers would be encouraging for me.
>
>Dan
>>>Dear Dan...MMY once promised everyone would attain cosmic conciousness in
five years....then with the siddhis program.....all your desires would be
fulfilled...then after many years he finally told everyone....You simply
haven't paid for enough Ganesh yagyas ....or rebuilt your home according to
Veda...clearly my frustration with MMY is even greater than yours....Take
care, James
Lawson English
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>A good part of that essay concerns consciousness creating matter.
>I wanted this provided by a pro TMer. This is the philosophical
>position which describes why TM, with its incorporation of Pantanjali,
>works in a scientific way, rather than by magic.
Since human consciousness is dependent on matter, something else must be
meant. What could it be?
The various physicists and biologists and philosophers, etc. who have
jumped on the bandwagon of the anethesiologist at the U of AZ (whose name
elludes me), certainly seem to believe that there is a quantum-level
connection between the biological networks inside living cells
(microtubules) and human-style consciousness.
I'll go a step further and assert that ANY sufficiently complex network
that exhibits emergent behavior ala ANN's and biological nervous systems,
will manifest some form of "consciousness."
The more complex and convoluted the system, the "greater" the
consciousness. It so happens that the entire universe (and perhaps every
possible universe, in a Many Universes world) may comprise (or be comprised
of) such a system.
At THAT level, consciousness DOES create matter, even if it isn't what you
meant.
OTOH, if the sidhis ARE demonstrated at some point, perhaps we'll find that
the "Pure Consciousness" state of meditation is a simulation of/communion
with the consciousness of the universe[s]. In which case, even HUMAN
consciousness could be said to "create matter."
Dan
Stephen Harris
Lawson English wrote:
>
> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>
> >A good part of that essay concerns consciousness creating matter.
> >I wanted this provided by a pro TMer. This is the philosophical
> >position which describes why TM, with its incorporation of Pantanjali,
> >works in a scientific way, rather than by magic.
>
> Since human consciousness is dependent on matter, something else must be
> meant. What could it be?
>
scientific position. However the Maharishi Effect invalidates
this position. If this effect is held to be true, then a
scientific explanation of the phenomena requires reversing
consciousness to primary and matter to secondary. The sidhi
of levitation occurs at the macrocosmic level. Classical
theory never has cars floating because it would defy the
law of gravity. Quantum theory has probabilities for a car
floating at the microcosmic level. These probabilities are
all dampened out by quantum averaging before the molecular
level. So that at the macroscosmic level the quantum probability
of a car floating is never manifested. The M.E. postulates
that the human mind can strengthen the quantum probability of
a car floating (the usual example is a human floating, but
the principle is the same) so that the macroscosmic law of
gravity no longer operates. Then what is manifest in our
physical reality is a physical action upon matter created by
the mind directly. Not through the intermediary of the body or
a device. No, something else is not meant. I do think this is
going to provide an additional challenge to AI. An AI mind that
can exercise volition to quantumly energize events which are
not classically held possible by negating such laws as gravity
and transmutation seems to surpass computability. Though Bohm
and Penrose mention this, it is Hagelin the quantum physicist
and Natural Law Party candidate and I think head of particle
physics at MIU which is putting forth the quantum explanation.
Lawson English
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>> Since human consciousness is dependent on matter, something else must
>be
>> meant. What could it be?
>>
>That human consciousness is dependent on matter is the current
>scientific position. However the Maharishi Effect invalidates
>this position.
THere's consciousness and then there's consciousness. The consciousness
that is said to be able to influence every event is an infinitely large
superset of human consciousness (that is typing this article), even though
the mundane subset is held to be comprised entirely of the superset.
It is the superset conscioiusness (or the subset consciousness acting
within its stature as entirity of the superset consciousness) that is able
to accomplish the sidhis. The mundane level of the subset isn't able to do
this and no-one claims that it is.
B. Mullquist
In article <357b52ec...@news.m.iinet.net.au>, d...@nospam.com.au (Dan) says:
>
I
>think that MMY tells us that the path is easy so that we won't be
>discouraged. I think that it's long and arduous, at least that's my
>experience. Knowing that there are a few accomplished flyers and not
>just muscular hoppers would be encouraging for me.
>
>Dan
I think it was Dr. Radhakrishnan, the former President of India
who said in his commentary to Bhagavad Gita the path is so hard
only very few people can accomplish it.
Judy Stein
In article <B1A0D7C...@206.165.43.7>,
"Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The various physicists and biologists and philosophers, etc. who have
> jumped on the bandwagon of the anethesiologist at the U of AZ (whose name
> elludes me),
Stuart Hameroff.
certainly seem to believe that there is a quantum-level
> connection between the biological networks inside living cells
> (microtubules) and human-style consciousness.
>
> I'll go a step further and assert that ANY sufficiently complex network
> that exhibits emergent behavior ala ANN's and biological nervous systems,
> will manifest some form of "consciousness."
Depends entirely on one's definition of "consciousness." See,
for instance, the "zombie problem."
Judy Stein
In article <357B9B...@pacbell.net>,
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Lawson English wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
> >
> > >A good part of that essay concerns consciousness creating matter.
> > >I wanted this provided by a pro TMer. This is the philosophical
> > >position which describes why TM, with its incorporation of Pantanjali,
> > >works in a scientific way, rather than by magic.
> >
> > Since human consciousness is dependent on matter, something else must be
> > meant. What could it be?
> >
> That human consciousness is dependent on matter is the current
> scientific position. However the Maharishi Effect invalidates
> this position.
I think what Lawson means here is that if there were no material
human beings (i.e., no beings with a human neurophysiology),
there would be no human consciousness.
The Idealist philosophical position (or the Perennial
Philosophy)--of which Advaita Vedanta (on which the TM teachings
are based) is one version--postulates that matter is dependent on
Consciousness-per-se, not *human* consciousness. Human
consciousness comes about when Consciousness-per-se elaborates
itself from Unity into diversity, eventually becoming matter; and
this matter ultimately forms itself into a class of beings with
brains and nervous systems capable of being conscious of
themselves and of becoming conscious of Consciousness-per-se,
i.e., capable of reversing the elaboration of Unity into
diversity.
If this effect is held to be true, then a
> scientific explanation of the phenomena requires reversing
> consciousness to primary and matter to secondary.
Again, that would be Consciousness-per-se, not human
consciousness. Human consciousness is the *outcome* of this
reversal.
The sidhi
> of levitation occurs at the macrocosmic level. Classical
> theory never has cars floating because it would defy the
> law of gravity. Quantum theory has probabilities for a car
> floating at the microcosmic level. These probabilities are
> all dampened out by quantum averaging before the molecular
> level. So that at the macroscosmic level the quantum probability
> of a car floating is never manifested. The M.E. postulates
> that the human mind can strengthen the quantum probability of
> a car floating (the usual example is a human floating, but
> the principle is the same) so that the macroscosmic law of
> gravity no longer operates.
This is my understanding of Hagelin's explanation of the
phenomenon of levitation. Nicely stated. This is what yagyas
are said to accomplish as well; Hagelin refers to it as "Vedic
engineering."
Then what is manifest in our
> physical reality is a physical action upon matter created by
> the mind directly. Not through the intermediary of the body or
> a device.
Yes, it is through the intermediary of the body. It should also
(I believe) be possible for disembodied individual
consciousnesses to accomplish this sort of thing as well, but in
the case of siddhis or yagyas, by definition they are
accomplished by the consciousness that operates via the medium of
the human nervous system, i.e., embodied consciousness.
> No, something else is not meant.
See above.
I do think this is
> going to provide an additional challenge to AI. An AI mind that
> can exercise volition to quantumly energize events which are
> not classically held possible by negating such laws as gravity
> and transmutation seems to surpass computability.
What would "volition" mean in the case of an AI?
Judy Stein
In article <357B6B...@pacbell.net>,
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote:
> >
> > > You also mention this connection is "spurious". I am including an
> > > url from someone who favors TM that discusses why this is important.
> >
> > But note that what the writer of the essay on the URL emphasizes
> > most strongly is to *know oneself*. He doesn't say anything
> > about holding demonstrations to convince skeptics. It's all
> > about personal exploration.
>
> A good part of that essay concerns consciousness creating matter.
> I wanted this provided by a pro TMer. This is the philosophical
> position which describes why TM, with its incorporation of Pantanjali,
> works in a scientific way, rather than by magic.
That's right, but it's *subjectively based*. That doesn't mean
it's magical.
> Hagelin a bigwig in TM: "Indeed, the phenomenon of levitation, with
> its implied control over the local curvature of space-time geometry...
> [SH- would provide] striking evidence for the proposed identity
> between pure consciousness and the unified field."
>
> He uses controlled laboratory environment instead of my term
> unambiguous demonstration. Striking is an understatement.
Indeed. But that's quite different from what the guy at the URL
you cited is saying.
> > Otherwise there will always be questions: maybe it was a trick;
> > maybe I and all the others watching were somehow hypnotized.
>
> Like we were all hypnotized that a rocket went to the moon.
Big difference, Stephen.
> The doubt you mention would only exist for some people.
That may be, but those people could be very influential and cause
others to begin to question their own perceptions.
> There is a big difference between I saw it with my own eyes and
> I read it in a book, or I have had some interesting consciousness
> experiences, therefore the whole claim is true. Levitation as
> a sidhi is much more convincing as evidence. And this is not
> demanded but offered as something obtainable. Religions do not
> prove God, they do not provide evidence but require faith. Offering
> the physical evidence of a sidhi is actually the thing that makes
> vedic philosophy with sidhis crucially different than relgions with
> faith or belief.
Right, but it does not necessarily mean proving things to
*observers*, as I keep saying.
> > The writer's whole point is that consciousness and subjectivity,
> > not matter and objectivity, are primary. It really doesn't make
> > sense, then, to demand that this be proved on an objective basis;
> > the means of proof are incompatible with the very thing one is
> > seeking to prove.
>
> TM-Sidhis sell the idea that levitation is a demonstratable
> sidhi for some people. The idea comes from Patanjali. He
> wasn't writing about something he considered to be fictitious.
> He is talking about a real-life event every bit as substantial
> as eating.
Patanjali does not enumerate the siddhis techniques so that one
will be able to practice them and acquire powers. The purpose of
the practice is to develop one's consciousness to enlightenment.
TM makes this very clear. You can't take the TM-Sidhis course if
you can't demonstrate you've understood it. Patanjali makes it
very clear that being attached to the acquisition of supernormal
powers is a *barrier* to development of consciousness.
My point is that to put all the focus on demonstration of
acquired supernormal abilities to observers is to pervert the
purpose of the program, both as established by Patanjali and as
adapted by TM.
"the means of proof are incompatible with the very
> thing one is seeking to prove" Not according to Hagelin. That
> statement attempts to compare levitation and reality with
> non-duality and duality? A ghastly flop of inductive logic.
It's *paradoxical*, yes.
I don't particularly approve of Hagelin's suggestion about a
laboratory demonstration under controlled conditions because it
can engender misunderstanding. I don't believe he would put
anywhere near the same emphasis on his comment that you do. My
guess is that he was speaking more theoretically than
practically, trying to make the point that it *could* be done in
a laboratory under controlled conditions rather than that it
*should* be. In other words, he's addressing the notion that
"passage through the skies" might be a sort of fuzzy mystical
metaphor for subjective feelings of exaltation.
If he thinks such a demonstration is important, then I simply
disagree with him.
I won't dispute that TM has at times given out mixed signals
about all this. It's unfortunate, and I don't endorse it. But
at least by the time you get to the point of forking over money
for the course, you understand where the emphasis should be.
As to the paradox: levitation becomes a physical possibility only
when the duality of material existence has been permanently
transcended, only when one has become established in nonduality.
At that point one knows that matter is emergent from
consciousness, but it's no longer a big deal; it's just one's
self-evident everyday experience. The notion of having to prove
it becomes nonsensical, like someone demanding that you prove
you're awake rather than asleep.
Judy Stein
In article <357b52ec...@news.m.iinet.net.au>,
d...@nospam.com.au (Dan) wrote:
> Are there any TM Siddhas that can demonstrate anything other than a
> hop?
Not reliably, at least as far as we know.
I have been meditating and involved with the Movement for a long
> time and have had many good experiences, but it dismays me somewhat
> that after all these years no-one seems to be very enlightened.
I've increasingly been seeing reports from TMers of very profound
experiences of higher consciousness.
I
> think that MMY tells us that the path is easy so that we won't be
> discouraged. I think that it's long and arduous, at least that's my
> experience.
It has certainly turned out to take longer than Maharishi had
originally anticipated.
Knowing that there are a few accomplished flyers and not
> just muscular hoppers would be encouraging for me.
Hopping does involve the muscles, but one doesn't have to be
muscular to hop. Hopping doesn't require muscular development,
nor does it seem to result in muscular development.
The experience of hopping is itself quite extraordinary. To most
of us who practice Yogic Flying, it appears very likely that it
will eventually lead to levitation just on the basis of the
experience of hopping.
It's tough to explain why this is the case if you haven't
experienced it yourself, but it's obvious to the practitioner
that it is the intention--the mental technique--that produces the
hopping, and that this is entirely different from the kind of
intention one exercises in an athletic performance. One doesn't
consciously will one's muscles to move.
Judy Stein
In article <6lhllp$791$1...@tron.sci.fi>,
eh...@sci.fi (B. Mullquist) wrote:
> In article <357b52ec...@news.m.iinet.net.au>,
> d...@nospam.com.au (Dan) says:
> I
> >think that MMY tells us that the path is easy so that we won't be
> >discouraged. I think that it's long and arduous, at least that's my
> >experience. Knowing that there are a few accomplished flyers and not
> >just muscular hoppers would be encouraging for me.
> >
> I think it was Dr. Radhakrishnan, the former President of India
> who said in his commentary to Bhagavad Gita the path is so hard
> only very few people can accomplish it.
Which--rightly or wrongly--is most definitely NOT what MMY
believes. He says the traditional notion expressed by Dr.
Radhakrishnan is the result of the knowledge of how to transcend
effortlessly having become lost.
MMY would also say that if one finds the path with TM arduous--
that is, difficult--it's a sign one is doing something wrong,
either in meditation (in which case checking is the solution) or
in activity (not necessarily something illegal or immoral, just
not right for who you are--like struggling through medical or law
school to please a parent when your talents and your heart really
lie in, say, painting or music; or obsessing over getting all the
details of program and daily routine precisely right; or not
getting enough sleep; or even--gasp!--working for the movement
out of a sense of obligation when you find it depressing or
oppressive).
If one finds the path "arduous" just because it's taking a long
time, and one is pretty sure one is not getting in one's own way
evolution-wise, MMY would most likely counsel patience. Which
isn't very helpful, but it may be the only answer.
Also, TM teachers use an analogy that bugs me because it's so
facile, but I can recognize there may well be truth in it: If you
start out with a filthy tablecloth and wash it and wash it and
wash it and wash it, over time it'll gradually become cleaner.
But the cleaner it gets, the more the last few really stubborn
spots stand out in contrast to the whiteness of the rest of the
tablecloth. One can become so preoccupied with those last spots
one forgets to notice that the tablecloth, which was originally
black with grime, is now almost completely snow-white.
(Is that from the tape called "The Impatience of the Seeker"?
Seems likely.)
Stephen Harris
Judy Stein wrote:
>
> In article <357B9B...@pacbell.net>,
> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Lawson English wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
> > >
> > > >I wanted this provided by a pro TMer. This is the philosophical
> > > >position which describes why TM, with its incorporation of Pantanjali,
> > > >works in a scientific way, rather than by magic.
> > >
> > > meant. What could it be?
> > >
> > That human consciousness is dependent on matter is the current
> > scientific position. However the Maharishi Effect invalidates
> > this position.
>
> I think what Lawson means here is that if there were no material
> human beings (i.e., no beings with a human neurophysiology),
> there would be no human consciousness.
Well what happens during reincarnation; the body dies but the
human consciousness persists at least as core memory. And when
this consciousness embodies, the unique karmic character of
the previous embodied consciousness once again experiences.
Anyway you look at it, there is a unique portion of human
consciousness that continues to exist,discretely, after the body dies.
It exists seperately from any embodiment, so it does not depend
upon embodiment.
But mainly I don't see the relevancy of the above line of reasoning
on the issue we were discussing. We do have have a human embodied
consciousness that is supposed to be able to access Pure Consciousness
and display sidhis or yagyas while still an embodied human mind^^.
These can be manifested without attaining a permanent Brahman state
so we are still talking about human embodied consciousness.
Moreover this capability of accessing Pure consciousness is not
limited to some individuals. All embodied human cosnciousness
has this capability whether the choice to actu upon it is exercised.
I can't make sense of the distinction he makes and your clarification
though perhaps explaining what he meant does not make it pertinent.
It seems as meaningless to me as the talk about sets and supersets.
I know what that means but what does it have to do with the price
of tea in China?
>
> The Idealist philosophical position (or the Perennial
> Philosophy)--of which Advaita Vedanta (on which the TM teachings
> are based) is one version--postulates that matter is dependent on
> Consciousness-per-se, not *human* consciousness. Human
But the importance of these sidhis and yagyas is that the
human consciousness can unify with Consciousness and manipulate
matter contrary to classical laws of Physics. There is a human
embodied consciousness behind the abnegation of these laws in
specific instances corresponding to the exercise of human will.
The human does undergo a change of state to Pure Consciousness.
> consciousness comes about when Consciousness-per-se elaborates
> itself from Unity into diversity, eventually becoming matter; and
> this matter ultimately forms itself into a class of beings with
> brains and nervous systems capable of being conscious of
> themselves and of becoming conscious of Consciousness-per-se,
> i.e., capable of reversing the elaboration of Unity into
> diversity.
I'll agree with this description. I still think that when the
embodied human consciousness willfully acts in the state of
reversed elaboration then it is human will that decrees matter
to be dependent upon that human will whenever 'natural' processes
are avoided or nullified. There is no requiremnet that the human
be in alignment with the Will of Nature to accomplish this. IOW
you mentioned people practicing sidhis wh have not necessarily
obtained some level of prescribed spiritual attainment. They
remain in the human embodiment and human consciousness.
>
> If this effect is held to be true, then a
> > scientific explanation of the phenomena requires reversing
> > consciousness to primary and matter to secondary.
>
> Again, that would be Consciousness-per-se, not human
> consciousness. Human consciousness is the *outcome* of this
> reversal.
The current scientific philosophical position is that mind
is dependent upon matter. The scientific philosophical position
would be reversed to if a single unambiguous sidhi were demonstrated.
This would be done without even getting into the Vedas.
Science says when you are dead that is the end of body and mind.
That is why consciousness is held to be dependent upon matter.
A yagya, such as materialization or levitation, demonstrates
matter acting the direction of mind in a much more fundamental
level than it is seen scientifically now. Such as throwing a ball.
As you may have mentioned all religions that I know of and Eastern
philosophy have God or Consciousness pre-existing the manifestation
of the material universe. Science rejects this. Pantheism and
quantum animism are at the bottom of the barrell. These ideas
become much more scientifically plausible with yagyas. But the
subordination of matter to mind is clearly demonstrated by a yagya.
These ideas could probably be connected. I think my original
statement that consciousness creates matter would be better worded
that matter is dependent upon consciousness though it may lead to
the same thing. This contradicts the scientific position.
> Then what is manifest in our
> > physical reality is a physical action upon matter created by
> > the mind directly. Not through the intermediary of the body or
> > a device.
>
> Yes, it is through the intermediary of the body. It should also
> (I believe) be possible for disembodied individual
> consciousnesses to accomplish this sort of thing as well, but in
> the case of siddhis or yagyas, by definition they are
> accomplished by the consciousness that operates via the medium of
> the human nervous system, i.e., embodied consciousness.
I meant something more practical like pounding nails.
The reincarnation argument was already given.
>
> I do think this is
> > going to provide an additional challenge to AI. An AI mind that
> > can exercise volition to quantumly energize events which are
> > not classically held possible by negating such laws as gravity
> > and transmutation seems to surpass computability.
>
> What would "volition" mean in the case of an AI?
>
Commonly, they speak of weak and strong AI. Weak AI is the
conjecture, called the Turing Test that if a computer program
can simulate a human by conversing over teletype(email) so
that the human on the other end cannot tell or distinguish
the computer responses from the responses of a human then
it has passed the Turing Test. The computer then can be said
to simulate a human mind. This is widely believed to be possible.
Strong AI: Passing the Turing Test does not demonstrate that
computer *has* a mind or that the program *is* conscious. This
conclusion is sometimes made at lower levels. So Strong AI is
the idea that a program can be made, running inside the black
box which is conscious or that does have a mind. Mostly it is
agreed that the program needs to have a sense of self. That it
be creative and can formulate and pursue objectives which are
not pre-programmed. Now Penrose wrote about this in Shadows of
The Mind. His postion was that strong ai was not possible.
He used the Godelian Incompleteness Theorem in his argument.
(note that an aspect of that theorem states that though a
proposition may not be provable within a certain system, it
is possible to move the proposition to a system of greater
complexity or axiomatic richness and then be able to find a proof)
Simply, Penrose argued that a good mathematician could cognize
or intuitively recognize a mathematical truth which was not
provable in the system. And that a computer could not do that.
Therefore a computer could never match all capabilities of a human mind.
No algorithm could achieve this, it was not computable.
This argument was mainly rejected because 'intuition' could not
be shown to be beyond recursive functions(algorithmic). It could
be that intuition was just the unconscious working in a computable way.
Now it seems to me and I have read this once elsewhere that the
idea of Pure Consciousness(PC) serves the purpose of intuition and
then some. One sidhi is omniscience for instance. Supposedly
embodied human consciousness has an interface to this PC. It is
a higher level of complexity or knowledge. If TM is true then
this is the case, and a certain yagya would support this view.
So how does a computer program compete with this resource of
the human mind in order to maintain parity? It seems difficult.
So I think an AI scientist would first not assume PC. Next try
to dismiss PC as relevant to the development of AI mind or
consciousness. Or perhaps limit human consciousness and the
computer duplicaton to a domain which does not admit information
from the realm of PC in a definitional manner i.e. normal consciousness
as the sole criteria. They will have to get rid neurophysiological
structure you and MMY mentioned. Or they will have to wind up building
a human clone to be an AI. Most likely defining away the problem
seems the easiest method to me. I'm gonna take a rest from this thread.
Happy Trails,
Stephen
James Duffy
TurquoiseB wrote in message
<199806090216...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>>I think that MMY tells us that the path is easy so that we won't be
>>>discouraged. I think that it's long and arduous, at least that's my
>>>experience. Knowing that there are a few accomplished flyers and not
>>>just muscular hoppers would be encouraging for me.
>>
>>I think it was Dr. Radhakrishnan, the former President of India
>>who said in his commentary to Bhagavad Gita the path is so hard
>>only very few people can accomplish it.
>
>Then there's the opposite view, which states that the only
>thing that makes the "path" difficult is the delusion that
>there is one, and that there is anywhere to go.
>>>> AMEN!!! .....Been reading Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj?
Stephen Harris
Judy Stein wrote:
> As to the paradox: levitation becomes a physical possibility only
> when the duality of material existence has been permanently
> transcended, only when one has become established in nonduality.
I wasn't going to post anymore, I am about typed out. But this
caught my eye. Where did you come up with this idea about
permanently transcended? I've read about 8 translations of Patanjali.
Several years ago though. The book is usually laid out in 4
sections. Sidhis are enumerated in book 3 way before permanent
transcendence. I vaguely recall they start showing up about
sutra 77. Over and over you make the point about sidhis are not
the point, spiritual attainment is the point. I don't question that.
My point is about what a revealed unambiguous sidhi proves about
the nature of the universe. That has *absolutely* nothing to do
with the motivation for pursuing sidhis you keep harping on.
I have never said join TM to get sidhis. I have said that for
those people who have joined the TM-Sidhi program that it is
suspicious that nobody had demonstrated levitating when flying
is promoted on the webpages. Motivation for wanting sidhis
in one's life and wanting to see a sidhi demonstrated are
different motivations. It is logically possible that there
are people with sidhis who chose not to show them. But everybody?
And because of spiritual realization? No, because I think your
statement about permanently transcended is wrong. And how about
your point of non-spiritual people also acquiring sidhis? Obviously
they are not permanently transcended. So maybe you mean specifically
levitation; I don't remember that. And none of these comments about
sidhis are motivated by desiring to have them, but by practicality.
Regards,
Stephen
TurquoiseB
>>I think that MMY tells us that the path is easy so that we won't be
>>discouraged. I think that it's long and arduous, at least that's my
>>experience. Knowing that there are a few accomplished flyers and not
>>just muscular hoppers would be encouraging for me.
>
>I think it was Dr. Radhakrishnan, the former President of India
>who said in his commentary to Bhagavad Gita the path is so hard
>only very few people can accomplish it.
Then there's the opposite view, which states that the only
thing that makes the "path" difficult is the delusion that
there is one, and that there is anywhere to go.
Barry Wright
"Confusion is enlightenment in drag." - Anon Y. Mouse
Lawson English
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>It exists seperately from any embodiment, so it does not depend
>upon embodiment.
Nonsense! A pattern only exists as long as there is a medium for that
pattern to exist within. The fact that some specific pattern (the
hypothetical reincarnated soul) might appear in two different bodies at
different times doesn't change the fact that for the pattern to exist (in
any sense other than the in which ALL patterns potentially exist), it must
have a body to exist IN.
TurquoiseB
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>>It exists seperately from any embodiment, so it does not depend
>>upon embodiment.
Lawson:
>Nonsense! A pattern only exists as long as there is a medium for that
>pattern to exist within. The fact that some specific pattern (the
>hypothetical reincarnated soul) might appear in two different bodies at
>different times doesn't change the fact that for the pattern to exist (in
>any sense other than the in which ALL patterns potentially exist), it must
>have a body to exist IN.
Possibly, Lawson, but that medium does not necessarily have
to be physical. Or are the stories of angels, devas, and other
beings of light simply stories?
Even ignoring them, the question remains, given your statement
above, if individuality *requires* a medium to exist in, where
does it *go* during the periods between incarnation as matter
or as light? What mechanism allows its continued existence as
self?
Barry Wright
"Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth."
- Alan Watts
TurquoiseB
B Wright sez:
>>Then there's the opposite view, which states that the only
>>thing that makes the "path" difficult is the delusion that
>>there is one, and that there is anywhere to go.
James Duffy:
>>>> AMEN!!! .....Been reading Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj?
Sorry, don't know the man. The above is just another Barryism,
and thus may be safely ignored...
Barry Wright
"When a man opens the car door for his wife, it's either a
new car or a new wife."
- Prince Philip, Duke Of Edinburgh
TurquoiseB
Judy Stein wrote:
>> As to the paradox: levitation becomes a physical possibility only
>> when the duality of material existence has been permanently
>> transcended, only when one has become established in nonduality.
Stephen Harris questions:
>I wasn't going to post anymore, I am about typed out. But this
>caught my eye. Where did you come up with this idea about
>permanently transcended? I've read about 8 translations of Patanjali.
>Several years ago though. The book is usually laid out in 4
>sections. Sidhis are enumerated in book 3 way before permanent
>transcendence. I vaguely recall they start showing up about
>sutra 77. Over and over you make the point about sidhis are not
>the point, spiritual attainment is the point. I don't question that.
>My point is about what a revealed unambiguous sidhi proves about
>the nature of the universe. That has *absolutely* nothing to do
>with the motivation for pursuing sidhis you keep harping on.
I have to agree with this one. Although the *point* of Patanjali's
sutras may be enlightenment, I have found nothing in his writings
that suggests that performance of the siddhis is limited to the
enlightened.
>I have never said join TM to get sidhis. I have said that for
>those people who have joined the TM-Sidhi program that it is
>suspicious that nobody had demonstrated levitating when flying
>is promoted on the webpages. Motivation for wanting sidhis
>in one's life and wanting to see a sidhi demonstrated are
>different motivations. It is logically possible that there
>are people with sidhis who chose not to show them. But everybody?
>And because of spiritual realization?
I think everyone is missing Stephen's point in this discussion.
He wants to see an "unambiguous siddhi" because he has
reached a point in his life where such a demonstration would
be helpful in maintaining faith. There *is* a value to demon-
strating siddhis and empowerments, and that is as a kind of
"booster shot" for one's sense of faith. For many, the occasional
appearance along the road of certain "signposts" that have been
traditionally associated with enlightenment can serve as an
inspiration that enlightenment actually exists. These signposts
can serve to renew one's enthusiasm for the journey, in the
same way that a << STUCKEY'S ... 23 miles ... 99 cent shakes >>
sign can renew your enthusiasm after a long drive.
Barry Wright
"A man may be a pessimistic determinist before lunch and
an optimistic believer in the will's freedom after it."
- Aldous Huxley
Lawson English
TurquoiseB <turqu...@aol.com> said:
>Even ignoring them, the question remains, given your statement
>above, if individuality *requires* a medium to exist in, where
>does it *go* during the periods between incarnation as matter
>or as light? What mechanism allows its continued existence as
>self?
What "periods between incarnation?"
How do you know what "time" means when dealing with such "objects?"
Perhaps the incarnation process merely leaps from one nervous system to the
next with no intervening time-elapse?
And how do we know what constitutes a "medium" in which a soul can exist?
Neural networks can be implemented using ANY system that provides the
proper mathematical properties. ANY system, from magnetic spin-glasses (the
mathematics of which were first used to demonstrate a rigorous mathematical
basis for neural networks learning processes by John Hopfield over 10 years
ago) to paper mache constructs to massive groups of Chinese gymnists -as
long as they exhibit the required interactions, they form an "intelligent,"
teachable network.
For that matter, the quantum superfield is defined as being a
superimposition of all possible quantum states. Perhaps there is an
anologous mechanism happening for souls as well.
One could even suggest that our PHYSICAL BODIES are merely a manifestation
of a specific state of this "Quantum Soul-SuperField" (QSF) appropriate for
the task of carrying around our specific souls. Shades of Scientology, I
guess [pun not intended].
TurquoiseB
TurquoiseB <turqu...@aol.com> said:
>>Even ignoring them, the question remains, given your statement
>>above, if individuality *requires* a medium to exist in, where
>>does it *go* during the periods between incarnation as matter
>>or as light? What mechanism allows its continued existence as
>>self?
Lawson replies:
>What "periods between incarnation?"
>
>How do you know what "time" means when dealing with such "objects?"
>
>Perhaps the incarnation process merely leaps from one nervous system to the
>next with no intervening time-elapse?
Please explain the Bardo without using the concept of time.
(That is, if you are not familiar with the term, explain the many
descriptions in many cultures of the "stages" a soul goes through
between death and rebirth without employing the mechanism
of elapsed time.)
>And how do we know what constitutes a "medium" in which a soul can exist?
< snip lotsa scientific stuff >
That all sounds wonderful, Lawson, but a far simpler conceptual
model is one in which no "medium" is required whatsoever, for
either individuality or universality. The holographic model, for
example, is simply light interacting with itself infinitely, with no
inherent reality *other than* light. Maybe it's the nervous systems
that don't exist, only consciousness... :-)
Barry Wright
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They don't like it."
- anonymous
Stephen Harris
Lawson English wrote:
>
> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>
> >It exists seperately from any embodiment, so it does not depend
> >upon embodiment.
>
> pattern to exist within. The fact that some specific pattern (the
> hypothetical reincarnated soul) might appear in two different bodies
I mentioned enought times in my post that this embodiment pertained
to a human body. I didn't say there wasn't a medium involved, rather
I think there is, just not human. My position is standard Vedic
philosophy, which you do not appear to be familar with. Though
you grandiosely feel competent to comment upon it. Your saying
"nonsense" applies to MMY's teachings, not my point of view.
I agree that it is hypothetical, but it is still part and parcel
of Vedic doctrine(reincarnation) which does not state that it
the disembodied kernal consciousness exists in another human body
while awaiting reincarnation. In fact that core consciousness is
eternal(supposedly) never needing a physical embodiment or human body.
Stephen Harris
TurquoiseB wrote:
> Possibly, Lawson, but that medium does not necessarily have
> to be physical. Or are the stories of angels, devas, and other
> beings of light simply stories?
>
> above, if individuality *requires* a medium to exist in, where
> does it *go* during the periods between incarnation as matter
> or as light? What mechanism allows its continued existence as
> self?
>
viewpoint regarding mind/body. He apparently does not realize
TM-->meditation & mantras-->reincarnation ending in enlightenment,
are all involved in the foundational reasons as to why TM will
actually work as described. He literally does not know what he is
talking about. TM does not view reincarnation as hypothetical. He
seems to want to restrict his definition to just meditating without
considering why it works. Reincarnation contradicts the current
scientific view of consciousness (human) requires a brain to exist.
Reincarnation does not require a human body for the karmic accumulation
associated with the prior life of a human being, generating such karma,
to continue to exist in a discrete energetic bundle which at some
point in time incarnates to continue processing the identical karma
of the consciousness associated with the prior lifetime. The scientific
method cannot answer such questions as you presented to Lawson, because
it posits that no such extended consciousness even exists.
Lawson English
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>In fact that core consciousness is
>eternal(supposedly) never needing a physical embodiment or human body.
But the Quantum Soul SuperField would be the super-position of all possible
souls. Taking Barry's idea to its extreme, the QSF is the super-position of
all possible *recepticals* of souls (and other material things) as well.
For there to exist a single, discrete soul, you need a discrete form in
which to carry it -that's the nervous system.
Stephen Harris
Lawson English wrote:
> What "periods between incarnation?"
>
> How do you know what "time" means when dealing with such "objects?"
>
> Perhaps the incarnation process merely leaps from one nervous system to the
> next with no intervening time-elapse?
>
Simultaneity is part of traditional quantum theory. Traditional
quantum theory also holds quantum theory to be subordiate to
classical theory at the macroscosmic level. (t) for a time
variable has to be inserted. There are people who opt for using
quantum theory at both the microscosmic and macroscosmic scales
but this has not been accepted. How do we describe how much time
it takes to go to the store. You raise some conjectural points.
There is nothing wrong with that. But we have been talking about
TM and Vedic philosophy. It is a fact of that teaching that time
elapses between incarnations. And the point of these recent postings
has been there is a contradiction between the currently held mind/body
philosophy of science, and the traditional Vedic view of mind/body.
Sure there are other views, such as Seth Speaks. As discussed with
Judy, the timeless non-dualistic view and and the timeful dualistic
view are both held to be true simultaneously. But again we have
been discussing the dualistic opposing views of science and Vedanta.
TurquoiseB
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>>In fact that core consciousness is
>>eternal(supposedly) never needing a physical embodiment or human body.
Lawson replies:
>But the Quantum Soul SuperField would be the super-position of all
>possible souls. Taking Barry's idea to its extreme, the QSF is the
>super-position of all possible *recepticals* of souls (and other
>material things) as well. For there to exist a single, discrete soul, you
>need a discrete form in which to carry it -that's the nervous system.
What nervous system experiences the Bardo between births?
Barry Wright
"All animals, except man, know that the principal business of
life is to enjoy it."
- Samuel Butler
Stephen Harris
Lawson English wrote:
>
> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> said:
>
> >In fact that core consciousness is
> >eternal(supposedly) never needing a physical embodiment or human body.
>
> souls. Taking Barry's idea to its extreme, the QSF is the super-position of
> all possible *recepticals* of souls (and other material things) as well.
> For there to exist a single, discrete soul, you need a discrete form in
> which to carry it -that's the nervous system.
>
the Vedas. Call karma of person A, K. According to the Vedas
that person dies and comes back later in time. This person A
now becomes person B with the same karmic signature as K.
The Vedas say this person is discarnate for a period of time;
no immediate reincarnation. The specific information which
represents the karmic accretion of the consciousness of human
A at death and human B at birth are identical. That is what
I mean by discrete, there has been no merging of this karmic core
such that any karmic attributes are lost as information from one
incarnation to the next which occurs during a period of time.
I am talking about science and the Vedas. Your alternative is
perhaps viable. It is rather theorectical to discuss. Your
alternative does not match the teachings of the Vedas. Again
quantum theorem has not replaced the classical view of reality
which contains time. Traditionally it is held subordinate at
the classical level. Your attempt to span the levels of reality
with quantum theory with instantaneous electron transfers has
not found a way to general acceptance with d=rt of Newton.
Scientifically, sidhis and yagyas are not supposed to occur,
either classically or quantumly, so it isn't just reincarnation.
Judy Stein
In article <199806091457...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
turqu...@aol.com (TurquoiseB) wrote:
<snip>
> I think everyone is missing Stephen's point in this discussion.
> He wants to see an "unambiguous siddhi" because he has
> reached a point in his life where such a demonstration would
> be helpful in maintaining faith.
No, I think we've all understood this point quite well; he's been
very clear about it.
What we've been trying to get across to him (at least I have) is
that such a demonstration may or may not be in the cards, and
that it's probably unwise to count the lack of same as negative
evidence, to make a conscious decision that one's faith is
contingent on such a demonstration.
> inspiration that enlightenment actually exists. These signposts
> can serve to renew one's enthusiasm for the journey, in the
> same way that a << STUCKEY'S ... 23 miles ... 99 cent shakes >>
> sign can renew your enthusiasm after a long drive.
Actually, it's more like seeing a picture of someone enjoying a
99 cent shake with no indication of how far there is to go or
what road to take or whether one even *can* get there--or whether
the person in the picture may have gotten the last available
shake, or may be the only person who knows where the source of
the shakes is.
Judy Stein
In article <357CBF...@pacbell.net>,
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I wasn't going to post anymore, I am about typed out. But this
> caught my eye. Where did you come up with this idea about
> permanently transcended?
It's pretty standard in the enlightenment tradition.
I've read about 8 translations of Patanjali.
> Several years ago though. The book is usually laid out in 4
> sections. Sidhis are enumerated in book 3 way before permanent
> transcendence.
Yes, that's because he's proposing practice of his siddhis
techniques *as a means of achieving* permanent transcendence.
Manifestations of the siddhis are signposts, benchmarks, of one's
progress in this direction.
Remember what I said about siddhis having *stages of
development*. Hopping is said to be an early stage of flying,
for example. Also bear in mind that MMY says that in Unity
consciousness all the siddhis are available in their fullest
development.
But it's the *practice of the techniques* that promotes Unity
consciousness. Patanjali isn't just describing the siddhis so
you'll know what powers will be available to you once you finally
reach Unity consciousness; he outlines a very specific mental
technique that "exercises" certain "channels" in the mind when it
is used with the intention of manifesting a siddhi. Actually the
mental techniques *are* the intentions, which are entertained in
a particular way (which he calls sanyama).
Even if there is no discernible result--even if one practices the
levitation siddhi and doesn't move from the ground--the
"exercise" is still taking place, just not at a level that has
any obvious manifestations. There may be noticeable *internal*
(subjective) manifestations (such as a particularly clear
experience of transcendence), or there may not be, but that
doesn't mean nothing is happening at all. The effects can be
very subtle.
He tells what the siddhis are, what the full development is of
each, so you'll know what direction you're going in when you
practice the techniques. He doesn't say you'll acquire all of
them, in their full development, before Unity consciousness.
Another thing it's good to keep in mind is that Pantanjali is
very highly compressed and frequently cryptic, even in the
original Sanskrit. Various sutras may have several different
levels of meaning. His description of how to practice the
siddhis techniques, for example, isn't something the average
person would be able to pick up, read through, and know exactly
what to do.
The Yoga Sutras are more like a teacher's manual than a student
workbook. It may be that you have to *be* in Unity consciousness
before you can really understand what Patanjali is saying.
Moreover, Sanskrit is very difficult to translate precisely; I'm
sure you've noticed the translations vary enormously from one to
the other. Sometimes a very subtle shade of meaning can make a
huge difference.
In other words, the surface meaning you get from a translation
may be very far from what Pantanjali actually had in mind.
I vaguely recall they start showing up about
> sutra 77. Over and over you make the point about sidhis are not
> the point, spiritual attainment is the point. I don't question that.
> My point is about what a revealed unambiguous sidhi proves about
> the nature of the universe. That has *absolutely* nothing to do
> with the motivation for pursuing sidhis you keep harping on.
I know what your point is; my point is that proving the nature of
the universe to *observers* is a distraction for those engaging
in the practice and may not be all that useful to the observers
either.
The ideal situation, in other words, is for everyone to practice
the siddhis techniques and prove to *themselves* the nature of
the universe, i.e., that it exists within their own consciousness
rather than having an independent existence "out there"
somewhere. What I'm questioning is whether the less-than-ideal
situation of practitioners convincing the skeptics by
a demonstration "out there" is worth bothering with.
> I have never said join TM to get sidhis. I have said that for
> those people who have joined the TM-Sidhi program that it is
> suspicious that nobody had demonstrated levitating when flying
> is promoted on the webpages.
Flying is promoted as being possible *eventually*. You have to
absorb a lot of what Maharishi teaches before you get to the
point where you're even allowed to learn the techniques, and by
then you know what the situation is. I don't particularly like
the idea of waving the idea of supernormal powers around
promotionally, but you can't actually learn the techniques until
you've understood the real story behind the hype. So nobody is
being flim-flammed.
Motivation for wanting sidhis
> in one's life and wanting to see a sidhi demonstrated are
> different motivations.
Yes, but wanting siddhis in one's life is a hindrance to
development of consciousness...
It is logically possible that there
> are people with sidhis who chose not to show them. But everybody?
There's a whole host of anecdotal reports, as you know. And
there have been various published scientific reports of studies
on yogis doing things like stopping their hearts and remaining
for long periods sealed inside boxes. Swami Rama some years ago
volunteered as a subject for the Menninger Foundation in Kansas,
and I'm sure some reports were published on what he could do.
As far as I know, though, nobody has attempted to demonstrate
levitation.
> And because of spiritual realization?
Not necessarily, although that's certainly one possibility.
No, because I think your
> statement about permanently transcended is wrong.
I think you may have misinterpreted it. See if what I said above
clears it up.
And how about
> your point of non-spiritual people also acquiring sidhis? Obviously
> they are not permanently transcended.
What I know about (theoretically) and am speaking of are siddhis
acquired via the practice of Patanjali's siddhis techniques as
taught in the TM-Sidhi program. It's my understanding that
siddhis may be performed via other means, but I don't know
anything about them.
So maybe you mean specifically
> levitation; I don't remember that.
It's my understanding that levitation is sort of the ultimate
siddhi.
And none of these comments about
> sidhis are motivated by desiring to have them, but by practicality.
Yes, I know. I'm trying to explain why it may not be such a
practical boon as you think.
Judy Stein
In article <199806091441...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
turqu...@aol.com (TurquoiseB) wrote:
> B Wright sez:
> >>Then there's the opposite view, which states that the only
> >>thing that makes the "path" difficult is the delusion that
> >>there is one, and that there is anywhere to go.
>
> James Duffy:
> >>>> AMEN!!! .....Been reading Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj?
>
> Sorry, don't know the man. The above is just another Barryism,
> and thus may be safely ignored...
I'm afraid Barry can't take credit for it; it's pretty much
standard. It isn't an "opposite view," either, it's just the way
the situation looks once the delusion has been dispelled.
People like Barry like to throw it into discussions of
enlightenment because it sounds so cryptic and mystical, and
folks who don't know any better may think the person who utters
it is therefore vastly more advanced in his spiritual
development, has seen a truth those who are still talking about
paths have never dreamed of.
That the people who make such pronouncements are just mouthing
what they've heard, or have had only brief glimpses and still
don't really understand how this all fits into the overall
reality, may be seen from the fact that they cite it
inappropriately in the wrong context, as here.
It's interesting to know this is the experience described by the
enlightened, but it's not of much practical use to those who
aren't yet enlightened (very rarely, heard by a person at a
particular point in development from the right person under the
right circumstances, it *may* be enough to dispel the last traces
of illusion).
For others, it's potentially counterproductive to hear it under
the wrong circumstances from the wrong person. It can become an
excuse, both for lazy sadhana and for really sloppy thinking that
can lead one very far astray (the term "dharma bum" applies
here). I have no idea about the state of Barry's sadhana (or
lack of same), but he uses this pronouncement on the newsgroup to
paper over all sorts of illogic and inconsistency in his
intellectual understanding, and, again, to give the appearance of
being more spritually advanced.
Dan
>
>Then there's the opposite view, which states that the only
>thing that makes the "path" difficult is the delusion that
>there is one, and that there is anywhere to go.
>
>
If you take the existentialist view that there is no path and that
there is nowhere to go, then what's the point? You might as well
stick your head in a gas oven to put yourself out of your misery.
Dan
TurquoiseB
I said:
>>Then there's the opposite view, which states that the only
>>thing that makes the "path" difficult is the delusion that
>>there is one, and that there is anywhere to go.
Dan replied:
>If you take the existentialist view that there is no path and that
>there is nowhere to go, then what's the point? You might as well
>stick your head in a gas oven to put yourself out of your misery.
I was going to let this subject drop with the one-liner, but
your post simply screams for a reply. The philosophical
stance of my one-liner does not imply existential futility.
Another term for enlightenment, one that I am more comfort-
able with, is realization. Realization that enlightenment is
reality. And that that reality has been the reality all along.
There was never a time when you were not enlightened,
simply times in which you did not realize that fact. There
is no path because there was never anywhere to go. You may
have felt there was a path during your days of non-realization,
but you were always the goal.
Barry Wright
"Don't tell me that you have exhausted Life. When a man says
that, one knows that life has exhausted him."
- Oscar Wilde
Brian Milnes
>Dan replied:
>>If you take the existentialist view that there is no path and that
>>there is nowhere to go, then what's the point? You might as well
>>stick your head in a gas oven to put yourself out of your misery.
Mr Eliot also has a reply for you:
"We shall not cease from exploration,
And the end of all our exploring,
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
- T.S.Eliot
TurquoiseB
>Another term for enlightenment, one that I am more comfort-
>able with, is realization. Realization that enlightenment is
>reality. And that that reality has been the reality all along.
>There was never a time when you were not enlightened,
>simply times in which you did not realize that fact. There
>is no path because there was never anywhere to go. You may
>have felt there was a path during your days of non-realization,
>but you were always the goal.
There are some who feel that the above description of
life, or others like it, is somehow inappropriate in the
study of enlightenment, because it describes reality as
it appears to the enlightened, but not to the "unenlight-
ened."
There are traditions -- the TM movement not being one
of them -- that feel that the only way to do justice to
the concept of enlightenment is to "tell it like it is."
No talk of path, because from the point of view of
enlightenment, there is no path, there never was a path.
Their theory is based, interestingly enough, on an
aphorism also used by Maharishi, "Where your attention
lies grows stronger in your life." The mind has a tend-
ency to identify with and become attached to the things
it dwells on the most. Their view is that if you primarily
teach and talk about the "path," then folks will become
attached to the concept of path and never realize the
goal of that path, which is present right here and now.
In other words, they feel that dwelling on "path" will
tend to keep people focused on non-realization, whereas
what they want to accomplish is realization.
It's just a different approach. Not better, not worse, just
different. It doesn't seem necessary to me to put down
this approach simply because you prefer another.
Barry Wright
Questions to Mister Language Person ( Dave Barry ):
Q. Please explain the correct usage of the word ``neither.''
A. Grammatically, ``neither'' is used to begin sentences with
compound subjects that are closely related and wear at least a
size 24, as in: ``Neither Esther nor Bernice have passed up
many Ding Dongs, if you catch my drift.'' It may also be used at
the end of a carnivorous injunction, as in: ``And don't touch
them weasels, neither.''
Dan
>It's just a different approach. Not better, not worse, just
>different. It doesn't seem necessary to me to put down
>this approach simply because you prefer another.
>
>Barry Wright
I not sure how to read your statement. I hope that you don't think
that I was putting down you or any approach. I admit to being a
pro-TMer, but I also admit that there is lots of room for criticism.
I realise that I (and TM) have no monopoly on 'Knowledge'. My 'head
in the gas oven' comment was more a reflection of my own thoughts that
life is worth living because there is a purpose and that there is a
bigger picture. If life had no meaning, I'm not sure it would be
worth going on.
Dan
Judy Stein
In article <199806101715...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
turqu...@aol.com (TurquoiseB) wrote:
[Barry quotes himself:]
> >Another term for enlightenment, one that I am more comfort-
> >able with, is realization. Realization that enlightenment is
> >reality. And that that reality has been the reality all along.
> >There was never a time when you were not enlightened,
> >simply times in which you did not realize that fact. There
> >is no path because there was never anywhere to go. You may
> >have felt there was a path during your days of non-realization,
> >but you were always the goal.
[Barry writes:]
> There are some who feel that the above description of
> life, or others like it, is somehow inappropriate in the
> study of enlightenment, because it describes reality as
> it appears to the enlightened, but not to the "unenlight-
> ened."
(Just in case you thought you were referring to me, Barry, that
isn't at all what I said.)
> There are traditions -- the TM movement not being one
> of them --
Wrong.
that feel that the only way to do justice to
> the concept of enlightenment is to "tell it like it is."
"For anyone to be, it is only necessary to be. No path to one's
own Being could be thought to exist, no path of realization
of...omnipresent Being could be shown, because the very
conception of `path' takes one's self out of one's own Being.
The very idea of a path introduces the conception of something
far away, whereas Being is the essential *oneself*. A path means
a link between two points, but, in omnipresent cosmic Being,
there cannot exist two different points or states. Omnipresent
means `present everywhere'; It pervades everything, and,
therefore, there is absolutely no question of a path. It is just
a question of Being, and, even when one is established in the
different states of manifested creation, one is established in
the state of Being....So Being can never be different from what
one already is, and this leads one to conclude that the question
of a way for the realization of the Absolute just does not arise.
"...If a way to realize the impersonal omnipresent could be
expresssed, it could only be said to be a way of coming out of
what one is not. To be is of an impersonal nature, so, in order
to be one's Self, it is only necessary to come out of the
personal nature, come out of the field of doing and thinking, and
be established in the field of Being. Being is the realization
of the Impersonal....It is only necessary to gain the habit of
arriving at Being by coming out of the gross into the subtle
levels of thinking and eventually transcending.
"Thus it is clear that the realization of the Impersonal is
merely arriving at one's own Being. And this shows that there
exists no `path' between the experiencer and the Impersonal.
What exists is the eternal existence of the omnipresent
Impersonal. The Impersonal is permeating the entire field of
creation as butter permeates milk or oil permeates a seed. A
practical way to reach the level of the oil in the seed is to
enter into the subtle status of the seed and reach the field of
the oil. LIkewise, if the level of the butter is to be reached
in milk, it is necessary to enter into the subtle strata of a
particle of milk.
"The only way to realize [impersonal Being] is to enter into the
subtle strata of things and transcend the subtlest experience.
There will be found the field of Impersonal, the field of pure
Being, the state of pure consciousness. It lies in the
transcendental field of everything. Transcendental Meditation is
a way to consciously arrive at the state of the Impersonal,
transcendental absolute Being...."
--"Science of Being and Art of Living"
> No talk of path, because from the point of view of
> enlightenment, there is no path, there never was a path.
Right. But from the point of view of ignorance, there *is* a
path. To tell those still in ignorance "There is no path," and
leave it at that, is to confuse and mislead.
Maharishi rather deftly threads his way through this apparent
contradiction in the quote above, pointing out that the "path" is
that of coming out of what one is *not*.
Ultimately, in Unity consciousness, one's experiential reality is
that there is nothing that one is not. Time enough for that once
one has achieved the first stage of realization: reality is
different in different states of consciousness.
> Their theory is based, interestingly enough, on an
> aphorism also used by Maharishi, "Where your attention
> lies grows stronger in your life."
Wrong.
The mind has a tend-
> ency to identify with and become attached to the things
> it dwells on the most. Their view is that if you primarily
> teach and talk about the "path," then folks will become
> attached to the concept of path and never realize the
> goal of that path, which is present right here and now.
(If the goal is present right here and now, how can there be a
path to it?)
The Self unfolds Itself to Itself by Itself. You can't
put your attention on the Self (Being). The mind cannot dwell on
or become attached to the Self.
It's good to understand intellectually the point MMY makes in the
quote above. But it's just mood-making to try to hold onto the
idea, because for those in ignorance, it's only that, an idea.
And *all* ideas must be transcended for realization to occur.
For those who are not yet enlightened, the goal is *not* present
right here and now. The "path" is coming out of that which one
is not, i.e., transcending, as in the practice of TM. To become
lax about one's practice because one feels one should not dwell
on the "path" is to lose the opportunity for regular transcending
and remain mired in what one is not.
> In other words, they feel that dwelling on "path" will
> tend to keep people focused on non-realization, whereas
> what they want to accomplish is realization.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Notice how the contradiction keeps creeping in when Barry tries
to justify the "no path" notion as a practical tool: it becomes a
path in its own right, willy nilly--the "don't think of it as a
path" path.
Ideally, one seeking realization shouldn't be dwelling on
anything but rather should be practicing an effective technique
and then behaving spontaneously in activity.
But to try to push *anything* out of the mind simply reinforces
one's attachment to it. The dissolution of attachment can only
take place spontaneously, via transcending, coming out of what
one is not.
> It's just a different approach. Not better, not worse, just
> different. It doesn't seem necessary to me to put down
> this approach simply because you prefer another.
To confuse students about the nature of realization is most
definitely "worse." If you're a brilliant teacher like Maharishi
whose intellectual presentation of the nature of realization is
crystal clear, and who teaches an extraordinarily effective
technique for achieving realization, you can talk about "no path"
without confusing anyone.
Those without such qualifications should leave well enough alone.
Judy Stein
In article <897467590.3467.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
"Brian Milnes" <b_mi...@ind-tech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Dan replied:
> >>If you take the existentialist view that there is no path and that
> >>there is nowhere to go, then what's the point? You might as well
> >>stick your head in a gas oven to put yourself out of your misery.
This from Dan is a great example of what I meant when I pointed
out that the "no path/no goal" notion can do more harm than good
when introduced by the wrong person in the wrong context.
> Mr Eliot also has a reply for you:
>
> "We shall not cease from exploration,
> And the end of all our exploring,
> Will be to arrive where we started
> And know the place for the first time."
> - T.S.Eliot
I was going to cite the very same quote but hadn't gotten around
to locating the precise wording. Eliot nailed it.
Actually it's a reply to Barry as well as to Dan. It's a very
succinct formulation of why "no path/no goal" is of only
theoretical interest to the seeker.
To Dan:
The existentialist view is not necessarily a prescription for
head-in-the-oven despair anyway. To wrest meaning from
meaninglessness and find a way to live "in the moment" without
the need for a "point" is the ultimate challenge, and those who
have had the courage to rise to it have found it a source of
liberation.
The interesting thing is that it becomes very difficult to
distinguish the insight of the self-realized that "everything is
perfect just as it is" from the existentialist insight that life
has no meaning. What both imply is that all value judgments are
ultimately invalid.
One wonders whether the same experience of consciousness had
informed both insights--whether the existentialists had, in fact,
become spontaneously self-realized without knowing this was the
state referred to in the enlightenment literature.
TurquoiseB
Judy sez:
<much>
I simply repost:
> It's just a different approach. Not better, not worse, just
> different. It doesn't seem necessary to me to put down
> this approach simply because you prefer another.
Barry Wright
"You can always tell a pedant, not from his language,
but from his inability to not disparage that which he
has not studied." - J. R. R. Tolkien
Marc Edwards
>
> In article <357CBF...@pacbell.net>,
> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Judy Stein wrote:
> It is logically possible that there
> > are people with sidhis who chose not to show them. But everybody?
>
> There's a whole host of anecdotal reports, as you know. And
> there have been various published scientific reports of studies
> on yogis doing things like stopping their hearts and remaining
> for long periods sealed inside boxes. Swami Rama some years ago
> volunteered as a subject for the Menninger Foundation in Kansas,
> and I'm sure some reports were published on what he could do.
>
>
Judy:
There was a movie that showed Swami Rama at the Menninger Foundation in
Kansas. It aired during prime time some years back. My best recollection
is between 1977 - 1981. Swami Rama was one of many subject covered as
the documentary dealt with various psychic phenomenons. I'm sorry I
can't remember the name of the film.
Marc