Thank you for clearing that up, Flow (and saving me the trouble
) Seriously, you were best suited for this, anyway.
For example, the original author of the article completely misunderstood the warning about "siddhis" (development of powers). First of all, it is not a warning; they are simply pointing out that the way to the next siddhi is by relinquishing (rather than pretending it is unimportant, mind you!) attachment to the one you have now. (Edit: as well as attachment to the next one). So that, for example, in order to become the one whose faith can move mountains, you have to first become the one who doesn't give a shit about where the mountain is
. And to recognise both the cosmic irony (and therefore, HUMOUR, which although present in this type of journey, is not usually recognised by those who are on the outside looking in) of this state of affairs, as well as the fact that these siddhis cannot really be misused (since, in order to use them for "ill", one would need to re-identify with ego anyway, which negates the power - a beautiful failsafe, in my opinion).
I am really liking Baba Ram Dass' book "Remember, Be Here Now" (http://www.naturalfreedom.info/viewtopi ... =22&t=2884
) because of the clarity he brings to issues such as these. In addition to the above, he also clarifies that, when using "The Witness" (observing yourself, your actions, emotions, thoughts, etc. which is the same thing that Eckhart Tolle talks about) to observe your everyday living, well yes, life WILL lose its "zing" for a while, and will become a deadened, dispassionate affair. He even admits that this will be a very difficult part of our path (sound familiar, anyone? hint: post-red pill.....) But he goes on to say that THIS IS ONLY A STAGE. The author of the original article, by omitting this rather crucial piece of info (whether due to an agenda or by simply not having enough experience with it, doesn't make a difference to the end result) did a disservice not only to this way of living, but also to the article itself.
Before anyone says Enlightenment is bad surely they should appreciate what enlightenment is.
Thank you. The author clearly is criticising what they do not, themselves, understand. In essence, they are criticising THEIR MISUNDERSTANDING OF IT.
(Waitaminit - that's what we all do, anyway..... To one degree or another, at least.)
Then again, this result is not entirely unexpected when one uses cold hard logic to critique something that is BEYOND thought. Does anyone else see the cosmic example of projection here? (I know, I get attached to whatever I happen to be studying at the time!!!). What I mean is, the COLDNESS of the logic used here to analyse Buddhism has resulted in the PERCEPTION of coldness in it. And therefore, as ever, all that happened here was simply that consciousness was folded back in on itself.