Is the subject "siddhis" or is it only "Wim"?

December 26, 2001

Dear Wim,

you say, that siddhis are gifts and no magical powers. Ok. It cannot

be and is not the point to deny such powers or put them aside or

ignore them, as you assume we do and to be in a "world of boxes". If

you have such powers and gifts, make good use of them, if you feel

you should do so. If you want to give some understandable

informations about them - then please do so also. What you have told

about the subject until now was more confusing than helps in

understanding. That is my problem with your mails. I have always the

impression: wow, he is intelligent, he is eloquent, he knows so much,

he surely has many gifts but about what is he really speaking ? Is the

subject now: siddhis or is it only: Wim?

If you or somebody else want to speak about the subject in a proper

way, in a constructive way, as a help for understanding, it is

welcome, at least for me. I am always open to learn and gain a new

view. I know not much about siddhis until now and you surely could

tell me (and others) something about them. My criticism, which led to

Harsha's respond, was more a criticism for the way you put the others

wrong and how you are speaking about yourself.

You say siddha and jnana are no different ways and can go together.

You say, siddhis are gifts. So please tell us now what you mean,

but, please, have a look for the way you are doing it and don't

forget: the subject is "siddhis" and "Wim" only as far as the subject

demands. (The subject demands of course Wim. Without Wim Wim cannot

speak about his views and experiences. But you know what I mean.)

Hope deep in my heart this will not be another circle of discussions

as we already have had, but perhaps a constructive new start in the

topic. I decided to ask you to speak about, because I see the subject

is not yet "eaten", not yet over in this list and it would not be a

good way to wipe it aside - as something unwanted or whatever - not

properly made a subject and this would at last not serve the list at

all. But perhaps I am totally wrong with my impression. Then,

moderators, please, tell!!!

I have found a very beautiful quotation from Ramana, one more about the true Siddha:

"In whose mere presence, one, even without effort, gets spontaneous

peace of mind (Shanti), that one is the real siddha."

(V. Ganesan: Moments Remembered, p. 80)

with this attitude -

Gabriele

December 27, 2001

Dear Gabriele,

Thank you for your kind and frank email. You are actually the first

list member on Harsha's to ask freely about 'siddhis'. I have been

writing to this list and similar ones for about 3 years now and many

members know me quite or very well, not all of them all of the time

appreciating a certain quirkiness that others see as humour.

Some list members know me very personally and intimately and fully

agree with your quote, having experienced 'shanti' (and more) in the

Presence of Togetherness in mutual unconditional love:

"In whose mere presence, one, even without effort, gets spontaneous

peace of mind (Shanti), that one is the real siddha."

Please notice that the subject of the last part of your quote is the

word 'one'. This obviously refers to the "real siddha." However...

However it also and simultaneously refers to the 'one' who placed him

or herself in the embrace of the 'siddha', thereby 'surrendering to

or falling into a state of reality called Shanti'. While in the

presence of a Siddha one is identical with the Siddha.

Shanti actually means "inner and outer peace through physical comfort

as well as compassionate understanding."

That is not the same as "peace of mind," which is too one sided, too

much on the 'mind' side of our integral reality.

As I have written so often before, the transmissions, translations and

interpretations of Ramana's sayings come from people who have no full

understanding of Ramana and what he is saying. (If they did, they

would not be with Ramana, would they be?) We can hardly expect

truthful renditions from people who don't yet know what IT IS, and

WHO THEY ARE. They are only considering the question "Who am I," they

are actually not answerng to the question.

The fact that they were with Ramana indicates that they wanted

elucidation, were in need of elucidation. How can we expect 'direct'

elucidation from them... except for well meant, but often weak

translations or renditions conveying Ramana's expression of being.

You wrote:

>>> My criticism, which led to Harsha's respond, was more a criticism

for the way you put the others wrong and how you are speaking about

yourself.

It is only after someone just recently (Dec 12) used the word powers

(in a mildly confrontational conversation between Mike and Jody),

>>> but we can read the list of attributes of a realized being in

Patanjali and also in the Gita. These attributes encompass

omnipresence and omnipotence, as well as other powers that are part

of the natural state of a realized being. <<<

that I felt the urge to speak more in depth about these gifts. I had

never used the word siddhi or siddha in the list before, knowing what

avalanche of reactions it could set off. My explanation of Siddha and

siddhis was quite straightforward and rather neutral, you can

probably find it in the archives, but I will dig it up for you.

It was that email that elicited quite a number of un-receptive

responses. It is not, as you suggest, that I was negative for

starters. I was actually warding off negativity myself... Not that

negative responses to my clarification were unexpected...

I cannot help my straightforward enthusiasm about the topics I write

about, some read this as arrogance, some read this as coming from a

"know it all," some read this as naiveté, some read it as it is...

enthusiasm and they participate in that.

No matter what, it did incite negative reactions but only from some

who write openly to the list. But there is also Tim, such a wonderful

compassionate being, whom I could emulate, but hey, he is Tim and I

am...

This is what I dug up from the archives:

-------------Siddhas are 'enlightened' beings with additional

actualising or creativesiddhis (gifts or powers, sometimes seen as

wondrous or miraculous). Thesegifts make them 'realized' and

'realizing' beings. The need to display thosegifts depends on their

playful and joyous functionality and functionalplayfulness to bring

joy.------------How to tell realization or enlightenment by its

signs!About the distinction between 'devotees', 'enlightened' and

'realized'beings!The upcoming definitions of devotees, enlightened

and realized beings shouldbe seen in the following light:The

perceived progression in signs, characteristics or marks of

dynamicperfection in a human being, from 'devotee' via 'enlightened

being' to'realized being', is only a matter of self re-discovery and

selfre-cognition within every human being. This perceived progression

is arepresentation only and no more than a manifestation in time, of

the returnto one's original human/divine self and being. (What one

was supposed tohave been, if something would not have gone 'hay-wire'

from the moment ofbirth and/or subsequently in life. The progression

from devotee to realizedbeing is really only a matter of recovery of

one's original state of dynamicperfection.Keeping that in mind, and

for the sake of elucidation only in order torecognize 'perceived'

stages of progress, I distinguish between devotees,enlightened and

realized beings as follows.. Devotees beings, FOLLOW and BASK so to

say, in the divine light andinspiration of enlightened or realized

beings through faith, devotion,piety, diligence, right action,

responsibility, duty and the collection ofmerit. Pure and perfected

devotees may be seen as the end result of HinayanaBuddhism..

Enlightened beings have, so to say, SEEN the divine light and

RECEIVED itas insight, understanding, knowledge and wisdom. Pure and

perfectedenlightened beings may be seen as the end result of the

Mahayana Buddhism.. Realized beings have, so to say, BONDED with and

have ABSORBED divinelight and are able to work with it as energy,

making the divine light alsoavailable and perceivable to other fellow

humans. Pure and perfectedrealized beings may be seen as the end

result of Vajrayana Buddhism.----------------About powers and

gifts.Those gifts or wondrous powers of the Siddhas are signs of a

functional anddynamic realization which works hand in hand with their

compassionateinvolvement with fellow human beings. The nature of these

gifts depends onthe realized being's function in time and space as

Bodhisattva, and his orher FREE and playful acceptance of his or her

predilection, with free divinewill and clarity of the mind of light.

(Not my will, but thine...)Those wondrous powers or gifts that

Siddhas may or may not display, arenothing more than signs of

realization. (Realization meaning: "Actuallymaking ideas real and

tangible, realizing them. Realization is not a mentalthing, as in, "I

realize that" but a transformative thing, as in E = M.c.c)Realized

beings do not need those gifts, but the gifts come automaticallyand

free with the performance of 'duty' or 'god's will'.

This'duty-and-will' (tapas) is self-created-and-accepted in a playful

manner.Siddhas do not need to display them. But sometimes, in their

creative play,the manifestation of those gifts slip through and get

noticed.It is quite an embarrassing thing when that happens..., a

heavenly form of'being caught with one's pants down'.

:-)))--------------Dear XXXX, I am one of those Siddhas, and there

are plenty more like me. Youand some people in Connecticut have

attested to that, not that I neededthat, but in my playfulness some

of that stuff slipped by...But, as you know, I remain as normal as I

can, keeping my childlike playgoing, remaining Krishna

dancing.-----------------A bit more about those gifts..."The siddhi

of owning a red car"Someone with a red car is not a better human, but

someone with a red carmight just come in handy, because the CAR might

come in handy if thatsomeone has to go somewhere to visit or if that

someone wants to carrysomeone along.The car, like a gift or power

(siddhi) is just a vehicle to help peoplealong. In principle only the

human beings count, but life and itsaccoutrement allows humans to use

a car...It is not important what colour the car is, although choosing

the rightcolour maybe part of the function to attract people to get

into the car.

Sincerely yours in love, Gabriele..., Wim

PS.

Now did you ask me yet about your name?

You will love my explanation...

December 27, 2001

Hi Wim,

>"In whose mere presence, one, even without effort, gets spontaneous

peace of mind (Shanti), that one is the real siddha."

This is a good test. It seperates the talkers and charismatics from

the self-realised teachers.

>Please notice that the subject of the last part of your quote is the

word 'one'. This obviously refers to the "real siddha." However...

However it also and simultaneously refers to the 'one' who placed him

or herself in the embrace of the 'siddha', thereby 'surrendering to

or falling into a state of reality called Shanti'. While in the

presence of a Siddha one is identical with the Siddha.

It can be a shared experience in that the expereince is open to view

from both sides of the fence. But I don't think that it is important

that it is shared. Indeed it could be a weakness to have to have that

experience with others.

>As I have written so often before, the transmissions, translations

and interpretations of Ramana's sayings come from people who have no

full understanding of Ramana and what he is saying. (If they did,

they would not be with Ramana, would they be?) We can hardly expect

truthful renditions from people who don't yet know what IT IS, and

WHO THEY ARE. They are only considering the question "Who am I," they

are actually not answerng to the question.

I agree that these compilers have not fully done Ramana's words

justice but it is conceivable that an awakened one could stay with

Ramana and even write his words.

>The fact that they were with Ramana indicates that they wanted

elucidation, were in need of elucidation. How can we expect 'direct'

elucidation from them... except for well meant, but often weak

translations or renditions conveying Ramana's expression of being.

Agreed. Further to that Ramana's real teaching was silent.

love hellman