Even without realization one can get psychic powers with practice. But these powers have the problem of ballooning the disciple's ego, and hence the reason why most teachers frown upon them.

Sri Ramakrishna did not attribute any spirituality to the manifestation of these powers, and even removed a psychic power of a disciple which he felt was bloating his ego.

Buddha similarly excommunicated a disciple who manifested his psychic powers in violation of Buddha's teachings.

It is only the enlightened one who can employ these powers properly due to lack of ego.


There are many enlightened one's who do not teach as they are quite content with the bliss. Only a few teach due to compassion. The few who teach display powers to instill faith in the disciples or for efficient work.

The enlightened one is content with the bliss of the Self, and does not need display of powers to gain egoistic pleasures. Such are the mark of a charlatan.



Nisargadatta was a cigarette maker by profession and smoked for relaxation. He was a nonvegetarian as well. He was however adept in application and applied his guru's teaching of being in 'I am ' state of awareness, and through steady application attained enlightenment in three years.

Ramana meditated in earlier times to stabilize his experience. He stated thus,"
“Jnana, once revealed, takes time to steady itself….the Self remains veiled by vasanas (latent impressions or tendencies) and reveals itself only in their absence.….To remain stabilized in it, further efforts are necessary.”



You are confusing and mixing tantric teachings with advaitan or nondual teachings and enlightenment.

In your path, tantra and kundalini are valid for attaining Self-realization, but the philosophies are markedly different from nonduality or advaita.




I emphasized 'effortless witnessing or mindfulness'. It is very hard for the unenlightened to be in the witnessing or mindful state effortlessly due to the vasanas or unconscious impressions which create psychological time through desires in the form of cravings and aversions, that force the mind to be in the past or future.




Shakti is part of the tantra or kundalini school, and I am not adept in it. I only stated the Advaitan perspective with respect to enlightenment.

If you desire abilities, states of mind they will be forever out of your reach.

The Buddha displayed a lot of powers. As a matter of fact it is part of the definition of being a Buddha.

If you have quotes on the two instances I would like to see them. I can see where you may not want to teach someone misusing their abilities but to say you removed them from someone... interesting story.





If you are enlightened you are beyond the ego. They are just a part of your being. Nothing about ego in moving your arm is there?


Such an addiction shows obstructions. Saying an enlightened master needs to smoke to relax again shows issues that are far from an enlightened master.


Yes, until life and meditation become one and the same. Yet Ramana never stopped.



Tantric is non-dual. Kundalini is the self.

Here is what Ramana had to say about it.






From experience, effortless witnessing or what is often referred to as The Witness is just the first stage of silence in daily life. It is far from the end stage. Are you familiar with Samantha or Shine? There are stages one goes through with the practice until one reaches a state called natural shine.

Please look up in the Buddhist section Dzogchen the Practice of Contemplation or if you wish I can describe the stages from Witnessing to Rigpa or Sahaja Samadhi if you wish?




It is also a part of Advaitan as well, as I showed you earlier with the quote from Ramana.

Are you a follower of Anada?

He who transcends all previous traditions and writes pdf's saying how every tradition is wrong?

No, I am not a follower...never really heard of him before. I just resonated with much of that article...especially where it says that love always reaches and never arrives...and that God is like a rainbow...all of that stuff....but I don't really wish to debate this anymore anyway...too busy watching re-runs of Ghost Adventures. lol

I'll just leave it saying that Shaiva Siddhanta has nothing whatsoever to do with Kashmir Shaivism and I belong to the former school...you know, those who have Siddhars and Nayanars.

I am also a follower of the one who wrote the PDF below:

http://www.dlshq.org/download/nayanar.pdf

Aum Namah Shivaya

Hinduism has a lot of traditions no doubt.

Here is an interesting thread and more and more evidence is coming forth that KS is where a lot of Buddhist tantra teachings came from.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/460...comment-806390

The links within that thread also make for a great historical read. Thank you for providing them.

All I can say in my 'defense' is that IF I am Siva, who is the one who rides the bull, has a garland of snakes and wears the moon in His matted locks? because I certainly know that I do not.

However, I made my position perfectly clear in my previous post. I worship the puranic Siva and even though we comprise the same essence, I am as 'alike' to Him as I am to you...in spiritual essence only, but other than that, we are as different as a difference can ever be.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Ooh, I liked reading this link posted in that thread:
http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tant...stopher-wallis

I have much time for Christopher Wallis.

Within your tradition and the difference between KS.

Kashmir Shaivism claimed to supersede Shaiva Siddhanta, a dualistic tradition which scholars consider normative tantric Shaivism.[5] The Shaiva Siddhanta goal of becoming an ontologically distinct Shiva (through Shiva's grace) was replaced by recognizing oneself as Shiva who, in Kashmir Shaivism's monism, is the entirety of the universe.

Once you remove your bondages that keep you from the realization.. you would be riding the bull :hug3:

Kinda like we are all already Buddha's.. just all the junk that keeps us from the realization of it....

Excellent, thank you :)

We have a tradition in Shaiva Siddhanta...much like that which is expounded in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (Patanjali was also of the same school) and it is called Ishwara Pranidhana - surrender to a personal manifestation of consciousness.

If I really knew or could accept that I was that, I would have nothing to surrender to, would I? there would also be no Divine Grace.

There is nothing wrong or bad about belonging to a dualistic school of Shaivism, because it is only through the duality that non duality can be attained...in much the same way as how the Christians need Jesus to realise God...or the shaktas/tantrikas need Devi to realise God.

The Saguna aspect of Brahman acts like a 'middleman'.

I also can't help loving Shiva for who/what He is and not who/what I am, so I wouldn't want to ride Nandi anyway. lol

Yes, it is cultural conditioning...but why call it Shiva at all, if it doesn't have Shiva's attributes? why not just cut straight to the chase and call it Brahman? Then Kashmir Shaivism would be no different to Advaita Vedanta...I could never get that...and don't think I want to either.

Thank you for your time and patience with me. :hug3:

Aum Namah Shivaya