dwai

"Knowing this, everything is known" is intended for spiritual/higher knowledge, not transactional knowledge. What it means is once Self-knowledge arises, all other questions regarding spiritual matters become irrelevant. Actually, you are right that Yoga is based originally on Samkhya - the dualistic philosophy of Purusha and Prakriti. And yoga can be considered as a preparatory phase for nondual systems. Yoga will take you to Nirvikalpa samadhi, which is the first step in nondual realization. To get to nondual realization, the yogi then has to rely on savikalpa samadhi and develop the non-grasping mind (aka no-mind) to release the compulsive patterns that bind them to the cycle of craving and aversion. Which is more important? The fire from a burning log or the ashes? The fire from a burning log is the mind that is being purified. The ashes are the by-products (vibhuti/siddhis). That is the position of the masters of Yoga, Vedanta, etc. I agree with them. You don't. That's your prerogative. I don't think it is a matter of logic so much as the objective of one's practice. If your practice is to gain these siddhis to understand and use them for whatever purposes, then you will pursue them. If your objective is to develop a non-grasping mind and Self-realization, then you will not give them much importance. Everything anyone ever does is in pursuit of happiness and peace. Whether they realize it or not, it doesn't matter. That's correct - the highest knowledge is of no use to anyone in the transactional sense.

In order to understand the Self is to know it. To know it, one has to follow the path of reduction/release - like peeling layers of an onion. This personality is a complex of layers acquired over time. All the identities we ascribe to us, all the likes and dislikes, etc. We have to release these layers. So long as the mind latches on to these compulsively, we cannot release them. So we work on stilling the mind, and entering deep silence via yoga (samadhi). The Siddhis you (and others are referring to) are the side effects of the mind as it progresses towards this great silence/stillness. That’s why they are called “vibhuti” (like the ash that is the byproduct of a Vedic fire ritual, or incense burning). And someone with skill is able to produce peace/happiness of any lasting nature in others? There is nothing wrong with learning. By all means, learn. But learning ceases to be a spiritual pursuit beyond a certain point. I’ve seen many people become compulsive learners. They’ll keep hopping from one tradition to another. The purpose of systems like yoga is not to fuel compulsive behaviors of any kind, even for learning. No one has stopped you from doing that. But that is not the purpose of yoga. Usually people who do what you’re suggesting get sidetracked by these things. Self is beyond categories, beyond duality of yin and yang. It is beyond comparison with anything else. That is why Self knowledge is considered the highest form. To ask the question, “why is Self the highest knowledge?” itself requires the Self (aka consciousness). It is just because the ordinary mind is outwardly focused that it misses this very important point.

Self realization is the highest knowledge, because that is what makes all other forms of knowledge possible. What is the Self? It is consciousness unconditioned. No one can prove it to you - you have to realize it yourself. We can only point to it, and show the way. it’s your prerogative to doubt. So how many are you going to teleport, or materialize food for, or heal? There are 8 billion people in the world - maybe at any one given moment, even if 1% are suffering (sick/starving/in danger) - which Siddhi can alleviate all their problems? that’s great! It’s okay to learn and pursue knowledge. But after a point it too becomes craving. Again, that’s your prerogative and preference. Just because Patanjali and other masters have warned against chasing Siddhis, it doesn’t mean you have to follow it. More power to you!

It’s your opinion. In yoga, there are 3 ways to gain knowledge. direct experience (eg you see a fire) intuition (you see smoke and intuit there is a fire) testimony of a reliable witness (teachers/masters, texts etc). Different levels. Seekers start with 3 and work their way up to 1 usually. That’s how it works in secular education as well.

I know from direct experience. I don’t need any other proof, and none would be possible either. Applying logic is meant to take someone to the point where they are looking into the proverbial abyss. And then whether they dive in or not, is another matter entirely.

How does what function? oh I’ve explored and realized what I write about. Been there and done that with Siddhis etc. They are parlor tricks when looked at from the perspective of the highest knowledge. Amusing, entertaining, certainly, but really, boring! I think it’s quite clear from your outbursts what/who is the immature one (but feel free to believe what you will). So you go craving and chasing things in the middle path? 🤯 Keep telling yourself that

The Highest Knowledge is Knowing your True Nature. As far as why that is so, it is because, knowing this, there will be no more questions. Did you read the OP? It's not simply my opinion - Patanjali, the author of the Yoga Sutras, said so, among other masters. Why can't someone do it if they want to exist here in the physical world? Just because you can't seem to? I would say that being content in and of themselves, will lead to work that is the best for the world - doing for the sake of doing alone, without any desire for an outcome. Such action will rise spontaneously and will be perfectly joyful. Also of course, it might be that no action is needed, then none will arise. That's like saying, "not running after your bus is the same as eventually riding the bus." No, my intelligent friend, that is not the same. It is quite the opposite - you are unattached because you don't crave. Not because you do and attain the object of your craving, which then immediately leads to the next thing to crave for and chase after. And the craving/aversion-ridden person is who is free? Free to crave? Free to run away from things that cause them discomfort? What consequences do you mean? Death? From the day we are born, we are rushing headlong toward death. This body-mind appeared, and it will disappear as well. What can be more inevitable than that? If life is unpredictable, one should not be too set in their ways, expecting things to happen in a certain way or another. This "wanting things to happen in a certain way" and getting stressed out when it doesn't is called craving, or "not wanting things to happen a certain way" and doing all sorts of gymnastics to avoid it, is called aversion - together they are known as trśnā (or literally thirst). In the Vedantic paradigm they are called raga-dveśa (clinging-aversion). A non-grasping mind allows one to accept whatever arises (especially since the world and life is not deterministic) without plunging into the depths of despair or jubilation.

That's what is more important. We can't take allegories literally - they are meant to be fingers pointing to the proverbial moon. Differentiating between wants and needs is very important for sure. Needs are for survival. Wants go beyond that. Now wants and fulfilling wants can work in two ways. One could go on a rampage trying to satisfy their wants - when channeled right, it will lead to technological advancements, and so on. When channeled wrong, it produces modern-day self-obsessed billionaires or sociopaths/psychopaths. The cycle of wants - craving (I want this or that, and the more I get, the more I want it - an addict's mindset), or don't wants - revulsion (I don't want this or that, and I keep doing things to avoid these - a compulsive shirker's mindset) - this is what leads to suffering in the world - caused by the incessant shunting between craving and revulsion. The "suffering" that most people in developed nations experience is chronic dissatisfaction with their lives. So people are constantly stuffing their faces with food, using alcohol and drugs to numb their senses or chase highs, or addicted to shopping, and so on. In spiritual practices, worldly desires are replaced by spiritual desires. After a certain point, even those spiritual desires must be relinquished to get the highest knowledge. Now, if you ask me what the highest knowledge is, we must start at the beginning. You don't seem like that kind of person from what I can remember of your posts over the years You are conflating the role of a sage with that of a craftsman. What does a sage need to do to be useful to the world? Does he need to control nature, or does he need to spread the way toward the highest knowledge? If you want to fulfill the role of a craftsman, many can do that, and they don't need any magical, mystical powers to do so. There are plumbers, electricians, carpenters, blacksmiths, engineers, doctors, etc. I don't disagree at all. I'd say there is no need to be alone either. One can do spiritual practices without running off into the mountains. Friendship, love, fun, etc, are not desires - they are part of our DNA, as you so eloquently put it. Why should someone resist any of that? So the crux of the matter, IMHO, is who is a balanced, "free" person? The one whose mind is unattached - ie, a non-clinging/non-grasping mind. That's the reason most spiritual traditions recommend eschewing desire. Desires (and their flipside of aversion) create repetitive mental patterns that result in "suffering." The way out is to let go of these compulsive patterns - and the outcome is a non-grasping mind.

it is more plausible that the karmic fruits of the village drew the master to the village. The collective karmic balance being exhausted, the change was triggered by the appearance of the master. There are many ways to skin this proverbial cat. If you are a “God” oriented person, it can be understood as “the grace of God”. Is it though? Is the desire for sustenance the same as desire for power? Sure a child’s desire for candy could be explained by them craving the sugar. But it could also be explained physiologically as their body needing the sugar (energy). What explains the desire for power? One kind of desire is to reinforce the ego (power), the other is simply an outcome of physiology. Bind you to the cycle of craving and revulsion - which leads to suffering. While it might be that you have a point there, where else would you find “peace”? By acquiring powers? To be able to control nature? To what end? That doesn’t seem like a logical argument to me. You seem to be the one espousing developing Siddhis, and yet, you are against being alone. So which one is more important to you? Developing Siddhis or not being alone? Seems like you want to have the cake and eat it too.

ah I see! I’m reminded of a story about a very famous spiritual master who visited a drought stricken area, where there had not been rain for many years. When he got there, and he asked about why everything was so stark and lifeless the villagers told him about the drought. He decided to stay there for a few days. It started raining the same night. And it rained incessantly for several days. The village got a lot of rain, the lakes filled up, and so on. The villagers very so grateful, they went to the master, to shower him with gifts, praising him for making it rain. But he said he didn’t do anything. He said the village was out of balance/out of sync with the dao, and his presence brought back the balance in the area. So it rained. No magic is needed, just balance. well, good for you It is clear that you are very intelligent. What desires do 12 year olds have? maybe for candy and games? Those are not the kind of clinging that bind you. Thank you. Good luck to you too Btw I didn’t say being alone is necessary, yet it seems orthogonal to the discussion here. How are developing Siddhis related to being alone?

Shaiva siddhanta is dualistic.

We are seeing the effects of “controlling nature” - pollution, global warming, overpopulation. How nice! Wow, I didn’t call you a monkey. It was an allegory. My my, you seem to be quite intensely triggered by what I wrote. I think 12 year olds lives are a lot less complicated than most adults, so there’s something to bringing that kind of simplicity back in your life. Maybe it’s time to rediscover your inner child ?

Yes well, that is qualified nonduality (aka vishistadvaita) - God is the whole, and we (plus everything else) are a part. That is not the whole truth though

The “becoming” is what is the issue. If you start with the position of “A has to/will become B”, then you accept that A and B are ultimately different. If you say that “A will become A”, that is a logical fallacy - how can A become what it already/always is? If the jiva “is actually/has always been” shiva, there is no “becoming”, only realizing/recognizing. If not, jiva and shiva are not the same. So becoming/evolving is a dualistic perspective, not a nondual one.

Perfect! Delusion = Incorrect perception of the immanent (aka Avidya). There are five aspects to any phenomenon. The ephemeral is name and form (nama-rupa, aka jagat-rupam). The non-ephemeral are being (isness), effulgence, and love (asti-bhati-priyam, aka brahma-rupam). Those who only perceive the first 2 are in delusion. Those who can see the other three (asti-bhati-priyam) shining forth through the names and forms can perceive the immanent correctly. Once the perception of the immanent is correct, one is free to not cling to names and forms.

There is a compulsive clinging to the ephemeral (phenomenal) world. That is part of the letting go/reduction that needs to happen. By not reinforcing the clinging, one can truly enjoy all the places to go to. It is like in a dream - if you are not lucid, you are subject to the dreams' ups and downs, pleasures, pains, horrors, and joys. If you are lucid, you can enjoy all of it without being affected by it. This spiel about " If you don't control nature, you are dominated by it." is a classic example of operating from a position of fear. So long as you are controlled by fear, you will remain compulsive and reactionary. What you consider to be tools of development are tools of deconstruction. You must deconstruct your personality and identity to get to the core of your True Nature. There is no other way. You can't become free of "nature" by fighting or forcefully vanquishing it. Nature cannot be vanquished, period. Each attempt to control and vanquish nature has only resulted in progressively greater entrapment. One of the stories my teacher told us about the nature of freedom is how monkeys used to be trapped. The trap would be a jar with a fruit or similar item, with a mouth wide enough to let monkeys slide their hands into it. So the monkey would see the item it desired and slide its hand into the jar. Then it would grasp the item in its fist. When it would try to withdraw its hand out, it would not be able to, as the closed fist would prevent it from doing so. But being a monkey, it would not let go of the thing it so desired and would fight, trying to "vanquish" nature, by yanking its arm out of the jar - object of desire in its closed fist. it would be so engrossed in this, it wouldn't realize that the trapper had sneaked up on it from behind, ready to bag it. Moral of the story? If monkey wants to be free, it must let go of its desire to control nature (i.e., hold on to the object it desires) - in other words, it needs to let go of its desire. Which is wiser? Having been given the truth and then rejecting it to wallow in the delusions of the phenomenal world? Or knowing and being stable in the realization of the ephemeral nature of the phenomenal world, truly enjoying it without succumbing to the compulsive clinging of the mind?

The assumption is that there IS evolution. True Nature is perfect, always present and never absent. It is not produced as a result of any practice, it cannot be induced . So no, there is no spiritual evolution in reality. Evolution is only apparent, in the monkey mind. That’s why Siddhis are neither considered necessary, nor important by yogis. The way to know whether you have “got there”, is when you realize there IS nowhere to get. You have always been that which you seek. PS. WRT development, there is no development either. There is only the path of reduction, of uncovering, and letting go of acquired layers of mind, and personality.

You can find it here — https://www.taichitao.tv/categories/restore-your-life-energy

A very powerful and different perspective on what Neigong is is available from Master Waysun Liao’s online classes on taichitao.tv The lecture is broken down into 10-12 short video lessons that cover the essence of Neigong in temple style taichi. What’s so refreshing about it is, is the fact that it doesn’t make a big deal about technical jargon and explains the mechanics in a clear and lucid manner. The method of practice is using the corpus of taichi forms and meditations of the system. I’m sharing here a diagram of how he explains the “cosmology” of dao, what de is, and how body, mind, energy (qi) and spirit relate to each other and the de. The concentric circles above are as follows - B(ody), M(ind), Q(I), S(hen). Dao being the cause and source of existence, the De is a copy of dao that exists in all beings. It is formed at the time of birth, when yin and Yang combine. This de also corresponds to the lower dantien. As beings, the body-mind travels from birth to death. The same yin and Yang that come from the dao, and fuse together to create us, will separate and disperse back into the dao. This is called death. Shen(spirit) is the interface between us (individual) and dao (universal). Neigong is activated using the mind, and we use the mind initially to train the body, work with the energy (qi), until we get to feeling the qi, and realize our De. At this point, we are in touch with our spirit/Shen and can effectively attain dao. I strongly recommend accessing those lectures - very helpful.

I did answer you directly many times over. But let me re-explain. In Sanskrit, siddhi literally means attainment. In the yoga sutras, the vibhuti pada outlines several types of attainments. Of which, samadhi is considered the only siddhi that is worthy of a yogi’s pursuit. So, all the other types of siddhi, which are outlined in the vibhuti pada, are considered as distractions that should be avoided by the yogi. Thus Patanjali’s statutory warning to all seekers - beware of all accomplishments other than samadhi. Namaste 🙏🏾

Siddhi literally means accomplishment/attainment in Sanskrit. Edit: Since the sadhya (purpose) of yoga is Self-realization, samadhi will be the “siddhi” the sadhaka (practitioner) is interested in. The practice of yoga is called sadhana. I see how you could be confused - I had assumed you knew the language, given how you claimed to really know the yoga sutras.

I did no such thing, but I can see how someone who doesn’t understand/know the subject can get confused. I meant that samadhi is the only siddhis that matter in yoga The link is of a transliteration of Patanjali’s yoga sutras. Your confusion is entirely your own doing. Though if you wanted to sincerely learn, I’ll be happy to explain it to you.

I think you misunderstand. What is considered siddhis by the monkey-mind are what are considered to be inconsequential. We are not in agreement and the point is not “totally moot”. According to the sage, the only siddhis worthy of consideration are the states of samadhi. That’s utter nonsense Te Samadhav upasarga vyutthane siddhayah. Te = they; Samadhau = in Samadhi; Upasarga = obstacles; Vyutthane = in the state of out-turned-ness; siddhayah = powers. They are obstacles in the way of Samadhi and power when the mind is outward-turned. or in other words, these siddhis are obstacles to entering samadhi.

Pray do share your translation There are different siddhis. The side ones appear before samadhi. Those that matter are the different samadhis that are the outcome of yoga.

I also have the testimony of very reliable sources - basically all of the advaita vedanta tradition and teachers , upanishads, etc. I don’t like to appeal to authority because I find speaking about direct experience far more powerful. I actually did. I don’t agree with them for precisely the very logical reason I provided in the OP (for example davidya’s articles on the subject). I will certainly check these out. Fwiw, I’m not being adamant for the sake of argumentation - I’ve given this topic enough time and effort and then arrived at my conclusion.