Siddhis and Powers are essential for Enlightenment

[bodyoflight]

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Oh, bullsh*t, that. Sez who? Give me your argument, not just an isolated quote. Make a case.

Edited April 5, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[aridus]

Depends on the non-word meaning of the words, I'd say.

 

If your non-word meaning is different from my non-word meaning, and we use the same words, that is a large discrepancy.

[ralis]

Oh, bullsh*t, that. Sez who? Give me your argument, not just an isolated quote. Make a case.

 

As we have seen over the last two years, Buddhists love to use ancient quotes. The older the better. Their logic is only of the circular kind.

[Creation]

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Yidam

 

Guru Rinpoche replied, “If there is no yidam, where is the source of siddhis? Without siddhi, how could there be enlightenment?”

The larger context of that quote is people on the Dzogchen path thinking they can skip right to the level of spontaneous self-liberation. It doesn't really make sense to apply that quote to paths that utilize different methods.

 

As for siddhis and enlightenment, siddhi means accomplishment, i.e. it does not necessarily mean whatever particular super-hero ability that tends to be associated with that word. A certain degree of accomplishment is necessary to proceed on the path, would you agree?

Edited April 5, 2011 by Creation

[bodyoflight]

The larger context of that quote is people on the Dzogchen path thinking they can skip right to the level of spontaneous self-liberation. It doesn't really make sense to apply that quote to paths that utilize different methods.

 

As for siddhis and enlightenment, siddhi means accomplishment, i.e. it does not necessarily mean whatever particular super-hero ability that tends to be associated with that word. A certain degree of accomplishment is necessary to proceed on the path, would you agree?

 

and how do you measure accomplishment if not by the amount of siddhis you have realized?

 

siddhis are just your reports on how far you have travelled down the path

[bodyoflight]

Oh, bullsh*t, that. Sez who? Give me your argument, not just an isolated quote. Make a case.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasiddha

 

Mahasiddha (Tibetan: གྲུབ་ཐོབ་ཆེན་པོ; Wylie: grub thob chen po; or Tibetan: ཏུལ་ཤུག; Wylie: tul shug; Sanskrit Devanagari: महासिद्ध; IAST: mahāsiddha, maha meaning "great" and siddha meaning "adept") is a term for someone who embodies and cultivates siddhi of perfection. They are a type of eccentric yogi in both Hinduism and Vajrayana Buddhism. Mahasiddhas were tantric practitioners, or tantrikas who had sufficient attainments to act as a guru or tantric master. A siddha is an individual who, through the practice of sadhana, attains the realization of siddhis, psychic and spiritual abilities and powers.

 

bottomline you can't achieve enlightenment without siddhis

Edited April 5, 2011 by bodyoflight

[King Kabalabhati]

I get the bottom line but I don't get the point. Someone seeking enlightenment running away from siddhis now? Come on, just accept what comes naturally on the path.

[King Kabalabhati]

edit dbl

Edited April 5, 2011 by King Kabalabhati

[torus693]

there are eight levels of Siddha and a unique ability at each level.

The levels correspond to the nine levels of matter and opening of their gate

that create a tao or bindu inside the body. Each Bindu is associated with an Ojah of it's chakra that are plasma type of energy. These plasma sublimated are what become the nine palaces, crystal palace, gems etc. Formation of any of these is to become a source (like a permanent magnet) rather than subject to it and overrule (to a degree) the functions of that level of matter.

[Otis]

My opinion: a siddhi is basically just a sense that is built into the human DNA. We should all have them but, apparently as of the creation of the ego, as a species, we have lost touch with the subtle senses. Some are able to wake up that sense (or were born with them awake), and so they seem supernatural. But the truth is: they are just more natural than the rest of us. Our conditioning is too loud, and keeps us from recognizing what is available to us, all the time...

 

If I start to recognize how restricted my beliefs have made reality, if I really choose to surrender beliefs, then I will start experiencing stimuli from beyond those beliefs. That stimuli comes in incoherent, at first, because I haven't learned to make sense of it, but with patience, a coherent new sense emerges, that may not fit into my previous world-view.

 

So, yes, I think a siddhi is probably a sign of some awakening, particularly of the humbling of the exalted status of my other senses. If I am willing to stop always favoring vision (and secondarily, hearing) above all else, then I will learn a great deal about how much I am able to sense. If I stop favoring meaning, then I will recognize how much awareness is coming in, that has no inherent meaning for "me", at all.

 

What is IME critical, is never to think of the siddhi as "mine". For I am just an ego, and have no such access to those senses. Those senses belong to whatever organs generate them, and I have to respect them, just as I bear the potentially valuable sense of self-awareness. As the ego, I am merely witness to the siddhis, and impede them the least, when I do not bother trying to be the controller or translator.

 

Senses like clairvoyance, like telepathy, IMO can never belong in the realm of "knowledge", because knowledge is only a tool of the ego. We cannot tell the future, because the story teller is always ego. We can only live our way, with preternatural ease, into the future, and somehow not be surprised by the serendipity that got us there. These other senses, if they exist at all, belong to other parts of the brain, and can only be accessed, by being humble with them, by not trying to control them.

[sean]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasiddha

 

Mahasiddha (Tibetan: གྲུབ་ཐོབ་ཆེན་པོ; Wylie: grub thob chen po; or Tibetan: ཏུལ་ཤུག; Wylie: tul shug; Sanskrit Devanagari: महासिद्ध; IAST: mahāsiddha, maha meaning "great" and siddha meaning "adept") is a term for someone who embodies and cultivates siddhi of perfection. They are a type of eccentric yogi in both Hinduism and Vajrayana Buddhism. Mahasiddhas were tantric practitioners, or tantrikas who had sufficient attainments to act as a guru or tantric master. A siddha is an individual who, through the practice of sadhana, attains the realization of siddhis, psychic and spiritual abilities and powers.

 

bottomline you can't achieve enlightenment without siddhis

yes. based on wikipedia entry, case closed.

 

lol.

 

 

sean

[mat black]

and how do you measure accomplishment if not by the amount of siddhis you have realized?

 

siddhis are just your reports on how far you have travelled down the path

The real siddhis are the things that are neither extrodinary nor super natural. The real accomplishment is to be able to not get angry, to always be patient & compassionate.

If we could never get angry, that would really be something, a great siddhi, but it's not at all easy, not to mention, not 'spectacular' either.

Edited April 5, 2011 by mat black

[rex]

A certain degree of accomplishment is necessary to proceed on the path, would you agree?

Yes and no. No in the sense that it's grace that sets us on the path to meet a teacher and yes in the sense that the value of what is taught has to be recognised, applied and appreciated through experience. Hope that wasn't too pedantic ...

[King Kabalabhati]

The real siddhis are the things that are neither extrodinary nor super natural. The real accomplishment is to be able to not get angry, to always be patient & compassionate.

If we could never get angry, that would really be something, a great siddhi, but it's not at all easy, not to mention, not 'spectacular' either.

 

That would have to mean that we always transmute/transcend the anger or dont generate it at all, otherwise we would end up very sick.

 

But yes, what a great accomplishment that would be.

[Jetsun]

and how do you measure accomplishment if not by the amount of siddhis you have realized?

 

siddhis are just your reports on how far you have travelled down the path

 

How about how open your heart is

[Wells]

and how do you measure accomplishment if not by the amount of siddhis you have realized?

Exactly! If you want to accomplish something, you have to use the scientific approach, or in other words: prove it! If you don't (at least to yourself!), you end up in illusions. But most people just want to BELIEVE that they are on the path to a spiritual accomplishment, they don't care at all if that's true or not! They simply lie to themselves and others, take the easy way! How can you prove something that you don't have? That's the one and only reason why "masters" just talk and never prove: They are FAKES! John Chang and Waysun Liao are two of the few who are true masters. All the "ego"-talk is just new age crap to make you "ego"-less = a good slave for the big ego of your "master"!

siddhis are just your reports on how far you have travelled down the path

No chance in this forum, dude, but at least my scientific mind sees the truth in your words.

[Sloppy Zhang]

yes. based on wikipedia entry, case closed.

 

lol.

 

 

sean

 

Because you haven't gone to wikipedia to learn more about something you've never heard about? People are quick to dismiss internet sources like wikipedia, but really they're just doing it without giving any thought to its content (which I have found to be, FAR more often than not, quite reliable, and a good collection of quotes from many different sources which would be very hard to find on one's own). Dismissing wikipedia because it's wikipedia is just too easy, wouldn't you say?

 

 

As to the larger discussion, I think siddhis are just signs. They are signs that you have either 1) gotten far enough down the path to realize a certain amount of something, which provides you the insight to be able to do them, or 2) have spent a great deal of time trying to develop them, even if you have not spent that much time on spiritual cultivation.

 

Furthermore, it's important to ask "who is defining them?" as in, are enlightened people saying, "when you become enlightened you have powers", or is it onlookers who go, "wow, that person can tell things about the future, that's called being psychic, and he meditates! Oooh, aaaah." Something might look very different to people on the outside than to people in the middle of things.

[3bob]

Spiritual "enlightenment" is not of the mind or in the mind, and there is no power of mind or "siddhi" that can know of or circumscribe such enlightenment; also such an enlighenment when it has completely taken over prevents any misuse of the various powers of mind. (whereas partial insights may not) Further, great gods, great demons and other great beings may have many developed powers of mind but not always enlightenment!

 

Om

Edited April 5, 2011 by 3bob

[Wells]

Spiritual "enlightenment" is not of the mind or in the mind, and there is no power of mind or "sidda" that can know of or circumscribe such enlightenment; and such an enlighenment when it has completely taken over prevents any misuse of the powers of mind. (whereas a partial insight may not)

Hm?

It's also unscientific to use terms that are not properly defined. That's the reason why people often talk at cross-purposes. What's enlightenment in your opinion? Open your heart and being nice and peaceful all the time? Then you should consider skipping meditation and better smoking pot all day long (or taking ataractics). I my opinion enlightenment is what happened to Darin Hamel once...I consider him a believable witness. I guess most people here have read his report. But you can get that result more easy with kundalini yoga: Just pump enough juice into your upper dantian/ajna/sahasradala chakra and you are enlightened. Only problem: when you run out of juice. You will age fast and die young; that's why taoist masters prefer to run low and to be "SE" (=saving juice) instead of becoming "enlightened" and burning out fast. So I can't see why someone would prefer "enlightenment" to immortality...could it be a hidden drug-lover thing going on...?

BTW I was not aware talking about "mind" at all...but some people here see a nice character/mind as a sure sign for spiritual development. I don't see the connection there...maybe that I am so satisfied with myself so I don't give a shit anymore about anything that others do or say?

Further, great gods, great demons and other great beings may have many developed powers of mind but not always enlightenment!

Yeah, because it's not a great deal for them...

Edited April 5, 2011 by Dorian Black

[bodyoflight]

true enlightenment has nothing to do with opening one's heart or cultivating loving kindness..

 

true enlightenment has everything about cutting your mind to ribbons into the primordial awareness..

 

for those who think that true spirituality is all about cultivating love and kindness and nothing else, sorry to say this but you guys have wasted your time and energies on the wrong path

Edited April 5, 2011 by bodyoflight

[Wells]

true enlightenment has nothing to do with opening one's heart or cultivating loving kindness..

 

true enlightenment has everything about cutting your mind to ribbons into the primordial awareness..

 

for those who think that true spirituality is all about cultivating love and kindness and nothing else, sorry to say this but you guys have wasted your time and energies on the wrong path

Hmm...could you define what enlightenment is in your opinion a bit more in mundane words?

[Wells]

BTW, so my Yidam would be Kali, I guess.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Dorian Black

[Wells]

They chose a deity and guarded that practice like their very life force, and on the basis of that complete commitment to the path of deity yoga, they practised the stage of generation, the stage of completion, and integrated these arriving at their final realisation of complete accomplishment and enlightenment.

Hey, these practices are part of the Six Yogas Of Naropa and therefore to become immortal by creating a godly illusory body and living in it forever. So it's first and foremost about immortality not about enlightenment.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Dorian Black

[adept]

true enlightenment has nothing to do with opening one's heart or cultivating loving kindness..

 

true enlightenment has everything about cutting your mind to ribbons into the primordial awareness..

 

for those who think that true spirituality is all about cultivating love and kindness and nothing else, sorry to say this but you guys have wasted your time and energies on the wrong path

 

This is only your opinion.

Do you have the right to judge what path folks take ?

We are all different and all have our own way of dealing with these issues.

Your view of enlightenment is a universe away from mine. That does not make me right or wrong.

Show a little respect for all the masters, sages and ordinary laypeople who have cultivated these 'wrong paths' successfully for thousands of years.

If no one had cultivated these qualities we wouldn't have the wonderful poetry, paintings, sculptures, gardens, temples, mountain retreats, etc, etc, that obviously come from an enlightened mind.