Enlightenment Realization/Jody

[Guest guest]

, "Lynette" <Lynette@k...> wrote:

> > Such an investment in your self image. You devote an astonishing

> > amount of time and energy towards its preservation.

>

> It is interesting Jody how you see his post as preservation of his self

> image {or an attempt of preservation} And I feel that in his sharing he

> opens himself up to the ridicule you insist on laying on him. If his intent

> was to "self preserve" I do think he would be quiet... But obviously to me,

> he has another motive....

 

To my mind you've got it backwards. If Wim didn't care what we

thought, he'd have no reason to respond. If he were truly a

siddha, he should be confident in that without resorting to

ridiculously long defenses of himself as such, or he could

employ one of his powers and either be rid of me or demonstrate

to us in one way or another that he actually does have these

powers.

 

I don't see any ridicule in this at all. If one is going to

make extraordinary claims, one should expect skeptical responses

if one fails to provide extraordinary evidence. Wim can talk

all our ears off about why he is a siddha, but until there is

some sort of evidence, it's just the talk of a person who wants

us (and himself) to *believe* he is a siddha. When it is apparent

that we don't, out comes the defense of his self-image.

 

> What do you think? Does a person being ridiculed continue speaking at their

> expense? Believe me, I know what self preservation is.... I do it all the

> time.....

 

This isn't about physical survival, this is a case of Wim's

defending a presentation of himself as someone who has siddhis.

I think that if he were really a siddha he'd have let the thing

go way back when it started. As it is he's dug himself a very

deep hole now.

> And Wim is not self preserving, he has allowed a can of worms to be opened,

> why? That is for him to say, and only me to guess.... But I would speculate,

> that showing gifts are frowned upon??? Why is that? And where is the line

> drawn? Perhaps he is trying to show that they are normal.

 

If they were normal then any one with jnana would have them.

I'm blessed to know some jnanis, and only one has a single siddhi,

and she never parades it around.

 

As I've said probably too many times, it's expectations about what

realization brings to a life that occlude Its manifestation in

a life. If you are expecting miraculous powers to come with your

realization, you will prevent it from occurring as It has nothing

whatsoever to do with any powers.

 

While it is true that there are cases of powers being associated

with realization, and some of the ancient sages (Patanjali in

particular) were fascinated by them, the fact is that the Self

that we all are lies completely beyond anything that could be

considered a siddhi.

 

And besides, Wim has shown us nothing. He has talked of his

powers incessantly, but to this mind there hasn't been a single

demonstration of them.

> And why are we allowing gifts to be frowned upon? I'm a poet, I share my

> works freely... I've also been known to channel in the past, and have quite

> a few experiences with divination... Although I dont speak about the last

> two very often.... I am quite free with letting you all know my gift of

> writing poetry... What is the difference between? Only that one is

> considered super powers.... And one is considered normal... Well, gee... I

> venture a guess that all are normal... Whatever gift... And even that is

> silly... They arent gifts... They are just discovered as being a part of us.

 

This isn't about frowning on gifts. This is frowning on claims of

gifts without demonstration, and this is about frowning on the

association of these "gifts" with jnana when the current seers and

great sages of jnana all condemn siddhis as nothing more than parlor

tricks.

> I'm very curious as to why you insist that you have no ability with

> "gifts".. Or is it that you have just decided that to display your "gifts"

> is wrong? And then my next question, is why is it wrong?

 

I have no powers if that's what you mean, outside of the ordinary

"I was just thinking of you" type of thing. However, I've taken

most of my clues from the hindu saint Ramakrishna, and Ramakrishna

was vehement in his disavowal and disapproval of siddhis, as

was Ramana Maharshi. It is wrong because people get the wrong

idea about realization. They become fascinated with acquiring

these "gifts" or they see them as a sign of attainment, when

all they really get is a big fat roadblock to their coming

to the understanding they seek.

> If it is because you feel a person that lets it be known they can do these

> sorts of things is conceited, or showy... When did that become a reality?

> Maybe that is your reality.

 

If somebody decides to show us their flashy new clothes, they ought

to be wearing them.

> If all of this is in an attempt to help keep Wim from hurting himself, well

> then, I can see that you are speaking with love. If it, however,is to prove

> that siddhis are wrong to be shown. Then I would wonder at what brought you

> to that conclusion....

>

> With love, and respect,

>

> Lynette

 

Mine is an attempt to prevent any readers from coming to the

erroneous conclusion that their Self realization automatically

entails the acquisition of siddhis, or that they can expect such

as a result of realization.

> Ps..... Good luck in this debate... I'm afraid I'll be out offline for a few

> days, as this very normal, enlightened being has contacted the stomach

> flu... So off to bed I go.

>

> Psss. Jody.... Love ya, lighten up... You are being too hard on yourself.

 

I wonder why someone who refers to themselves as enlightened would

get the silly idea that I'm being hard on myself.

 

There is nothing hard about this. I'm just saying my piece. On

certain topics I might come off as a bit relentless, but I can

assure you that I'm having fun the whole time I'm engaged here.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jody,

 

You've narrowed down the point of this thread, and in this excerpt, have stated

it succinctly and impersonally, in your usual clear style.

 

--Greg

>This isn't about frowning on gifts. This is frowning on claims of

>gifts without demonstration, and this is about frowning on the

>association of these "gifts" with jnana when the current seers and

>great sages of jnana all condemn siddhis as nothing more than parlor

>tricks.