Siddhis and Buddhism....

budding_flower

What do you thing about the attainment of Siddhis? What is your thesis as Buddhist practitioners?

Jeffrey

Sounds like an interesting experience. I want some sidhis

taiyaki

Being able to eat some cereal in the morning then my body processes the cereal. That cereal becomes energy.
From that energy I can walk around and do things. Talk to people and share the dharma. Relax and watch the flowers.

That my friend is a siddhi. This whole life is a siddhi.

Also the internet. Computers. Cellphones. These are all siddhis. We transcend time and space with these tools. Communication is a siddhi. Talking, language, body movement is a siddhi. Love, patience, peace are all siddhis.

in short this whole human experience are siddhis. the ordinary is the most extraordinary.

but i know you're not referring to the same siddhis. but as a buddhist i like to see the ones i already have.

DhammaDhatu

just like i am not a buddha, i have no siddhis. nothing in my life is a 'siddhi'

just like a dog is a dog and not a cat, siddhis are siddhis and buddhas are buddhas

siddhis are innate mental capacities that flower is some practitioners

just like our bodies have the capacity to go to the toilet, some minds have the capacity for siddhis

the mind must be very pure, for siddhis to flower

but, as i said, not all fully enlightened (purified) beings have/had siddhis

Takuan

They are unnecessary developments within certain practitioners. Although interesting, they are not considered to be a product of enlightenment. Some schools view them as a distraction (Zen for example) and rarely speak of them. The tibetan schools seem to view them as a sign of attainment. Milarepa, for example, is said to have been able to fly and cross long distances in very short time periods. These powers, according to "The Life of Milarepa", revealed themselves before his enlightenment.

dorje

Even within the Tibetan schools siddhis are considered a by-product of your practice and not to be regarded as something to attain. They are markers of your attainment, but they can become fetters to detract you from the final goal of full and complete enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings.

jinzang

Siddhis are described as a byproduct of achieving samadhi in all Buddhist traditions. Since none of us here have done so, it is idle to speculate whether this is true or not. I myself have never seen any despite having hung around with lamas for twenty years.

DhammaDhatu

i have seen enough siddhis, in both Buddhists and Christians

zenff

Anyone who has attained some siddhi can make a million dollars.
http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html

Don’t be modest! Do yourself and Buddhism a big favor and prove it.

shanyin

I have a book called "Buddha His Life and Teachings", and in it in a story of the Buddha He says roughly "Whoever attempts to perform mircales is no longer a disciple of the Buddha".

Perform may be the key word there for some people but... I'm not sure if that's the exact quote I'll have to check the book and get back to you.

:P

shanyin

"The disciple who with evil intent and from covetousness boasts of a superhuman perfection, be it celestial visions or miracles, is no longer a disciple of the Shakymuni. I forbid you, O bhikkhus, to employ any spells or supplications, for they are useless, since the law of karma governs all things. He who attempts to perform miracles has not understood the doctrine of the Tathagata"

Would like to know what sutta that is from if anyone knows.

shanyin

Anyone who has attained some siddhi can make a million dollars.
http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html

Don’t be modest! Do yourself and Buddhism a big favor and prove it.

"Jotikkha, the son of Subhaadda, was a householder living in Rajagaha. Having received a precious bowl of sandalwood decorated with jewels, he erected a long pole before his house and put the bowl on its top with this legend: 'Should a samana take this bowl down without using a ladder or a stick with a hook, or without climbing the pole, but by magic power, he shall receive as reward whatever he desiers.'

The people came to the Blessed One, full of wonder and their mouths overflowing with praise, saying: "Great is the Tathagata. His disciples perfom miracles. Kassapa, the disciple of the Buddha, saw the bowl on Jotikkha's pole, and, stretching out his hand, he took it down, carrying it away in triumph to the vihara."
When the Blessed One heard what had happened, he went to Kassapa, and, breaking the bowl to pieces, forbade his disciples to perform miracles of any kind..."

zenff

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
We should not accept anecdotes for proof.
We certainly must be aware of possible cognitive bias, when we start to think we have showed supernatural abilities ourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

It is forbidden to a monk/nun to show his/her supernatural powers.
That’s convenient.
The logic behind it goes something like this:
It takes a very pure mind to develop the siddhi. Such a pure mind simply is beyond showing off. And as the siddhi is no goal but just a side-effect it is ignored.

It is damaging to Buddhism to leave the issue open this way: saying the siddhi are possible without supplying convincing evidence.

So I suggest we close the matter saying:
No proof = No siddhi.

shanyin

Smart suggestions

zenff

A lay-person or someone who disrobed can collect Randi’s million dollars and donate the money to charity or to a monastery.
I think it would be great karma!

DhammaDhatu

I have a book called "Buddha His Life and Teachings", and in it in a story of the Buddha He says roughly "Whoever attempts to perform mircales is no longer a disciple of the Buddha".

not quite but see the beginning of this sutta:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html

Cloud

We certainly must be aware of possible cognitive bias, when we start to think we have showed supernatural abilities ourselves.

THANK YOU (too much?). I didn't know what this "cognitive bias" was, so I followed your link and it led me to another link on one type called belief bias (easier to understand description here), which finally gives a name to religious people thinking reasonably in most areas, but refusing to listen to logic in others because of their beliefs. It's nice to put a name to something and to know it's actually studied and such.

zenff

Thank you too.
This belief bias is a good one to remember.

My own prime cognitive bias is the one which says that I am always right.
Am I the only one ? Is there a name for it?

Cloud

I think everyone has that bias to a point. If they didn't think they were right, they wouldn't give people that information or argue about it. Not sure if there's a name to it...

Jeffrey

no proof does not prove the contrary zenff. For example you don't have proof that I love my mother, but that doesn't mean that I do not love her.

Fran45

There's also a phenomenon called attentional bias which means people will ignore or forget information and experiences which contradict their own beliefs while remembering and over emphasising information that confirms their pov. It occurs unconsciously and has been empirically demonstrated in anything from politics to health information such as smoking.

zenff

no proof does not prove the contrary zenff. For example you don't have proof that I love my mother, but that doesn't mean that I do not love her.

That is correct.
That’s why they say that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

It is improper to make a wild claim (on siddhi) without proof to support it, and then challenge the world to disprove it.
But it is acceptable to say you love your mother without experiments in a laboratory to back you up.

Jeffrey

Wild is a convention, but I understand what you are saying. Nonetheless I don't know of anyone who has claimed that they have sidhis other than Jesus. Do you? Other than a few spoon benders, but then there is always some wackjobs.

caz

The only Siddhis im interested in attaining are Renunciation and Bodhichitta, These are truly supramundane accomplishments. After all a bird can fly and a magician can conjure various forms and yet they still remain bound by samsara.

Takuan

I want wolverine claws and eye lasers.

Jeffrey

Lol. I want the ironman suit. And Gandalf's ability to make pirate ship smokerings and dragon fireworks

person

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
We should not accept anecdotes for proof.

Thinking meat seems to be an extraordinary claim to me.

So I suggest we close the matter saying:
No proof = No siddhi.

Why do we have to close the matter? Can't it be kept an open question?

DhammaDhatu

the suttas extensively describe siddhis

Whoknows

There is no damage to Buddhism with the possibilities of Siddhis, this is just a projection of personal view (of course so is my counter! ). I believe (in Siddhis) and don't think its relevant whether it is proven or not. Conversely I don't think it is useful to aim towards attaining Siddhis as this would be counter productive from the Buddhist POV, too much thinking about "who" is performing the Siddhis and the potential for excessive pride and conceit. Also there is always the question of the balance of power, knowledge, control and ethics but this is not restricted to Siddhis. But, of course, this is merely conjecture on my part.

I think world view may have an impact here, if one was to believe that we are merely projections of the functioning of our brains then Siddhis would be impossible or extremely unlikely. Cause and result. Belief conditions theories, theories condition experience and experiment, experience and experiment condition reality as it appears, reality as it appears condition beliefs....

zenff

Thinking meat seems to be an extraordinary claim to me.

I suppose you refer to “the hard problem of consciousness”.
If so, I agree. Any claim on the subject is an extraordinary one and will require solid evidence.
If my memory is ok, I never said the question was solved. And the answer was clear.

At the other hand there has been some scientific research on paranormal phenomena; and the result was zero. No evidence for the paranormal. Please Google professor Susan Blackmore
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

Why do we have to close the matter? Can't it be kept an open question?

Sure we can keep the question open; but for how long?
How many times do we have to look - find nothing – look again – before we say: it probably isn’t there?

zenff

...
I think world view may have an impact here, if one was to believe that we are merely projections of the functioning of our brains then Siddhis would be impossible or extremely unlikely. Cause and result. Belief conditions theories, theories condition experience and experiment, experience and experiment condition reality as it appears, reality as it appears condition beliefs....

The paranormal has been researched for many years now...
Conclusion: nothing is found.

http://www.csicop.org/si/

Whoknows

The paranormal has been researched for many years now...
Conclusion: there is nothing.

http://www.csicop.org/si/

Buddhism is fairly new to the West.

zenff

Buddhism is fairly new to the West.

Paranormal claims are as old as the world.

zenff

There is no damage to Buddhism with the possibilities of Siddhis, this is just a projection of personal view (of course so is my counter! ). I believe (in Siddhis) and don't think its relevant whether it is proven or not.

Sorry for posting three times in a row.
I’m a slow thinker I guess.

Want to come back to this one.
I think it corrodes the credibility of Buddhism when Buddhists en masse believe in superstitious nonsense.

zenff

(Mod’s, I’m sorry, this is the last one.)

the suttas extensively describe siddhis

So this proves that the suttas can not be 100% factually accurate.
Is that the point you wish to make?

DhammaDhatu

no

the point i wish to make is your views on this matter can not be 100% factually accurate

zenff

Thought so!

budding_flower

Science vs. Metaphysics, Metaphysics vs. Science, Science vs. Metaphysics....

Th world is a broader than science IMHO, at the same time science is a wonderful tool but, I don't think that the 'paranormal' is something 'extraordinary', at the same time I like to say that someone said on a disscusion that we should not look at the history of science but rather at the philosphy of science and what theories have prevailed over others. Science might have been a lot different if the scientific paradigm was different...

Jeffrey

Do you believe that a good cup of tea exists? Only one way to prove it. Enjoy.

Jeffrey

Zenff, when I lost my job because I had a mental breakdown a lady showed up at my door with a load of groceries. She lived in the neighborhood. How did she know to do that?

My mom's sister died and her flower she had taken to while ill was sunflowers. The next year sunflowers grew along our driveway. They have not returned since then. Why did that happen?

Notice that none of these examples is proof. But what is important is to be open to mystery. You don't seem happy about these things to me and I wish you would just let it go and find peace

zenff

Zenff, when I lost my job because I had a mental breakdown a lady showed up at my door with a load of groceries. She lived in the neighborhood. How did she know to do that?

My mom's sister died and her flower she had taken to while ill was sunflowers. The next year sunflowers grew along our driveway. They have not returned since then. Why did that happen?

Notice that none of these examples is proof. But what is important is to be open to mystery. You don't seem happy about these things to me and I wish you would just let it go and find peace

I could give you some counterexamples of situations where things didn’t mysteriously fall in place.
And I’m at peace with them!

Thanks for your concern, and I’ll have that tea.

person

When I first started on the spiritual path and first started started meditating, within the first few months (I've been a Buddhist for almost 16 years now) I had a very powerful spiritual moment that lasted a half hour or so. It wasn't some extraordinary siddhi or something but I don't know how to explain that apart from the notion of ripening of some previous life mental karma. I hadn't been meditating long enough or well enough to account for that sudden explosion of experience through simple brain rewiring. I've talked with several other people who've had similar experiences when first encountering a spiritual path, so its not unique to myself.

If conciousness is a fundamental building block of the universe with matter and energy, where conciousness is the most subtle then energy and matter being the most gross (just speculating here). Then if someone could tap into that subtle form of conciousness through meditation then it wouldn't seem so strange that conciousness could direct energy and matter in whatever way it wanted, or siddhi powers.

zenff

@person
I’ll buy anything.
All I ask is proof.

person

@person
I’ll buy anything.
All I ask is proof.

Fair enough, I guess where I come down though, is that in the absense of evidence, I err on the side of the experience of 2,500 years of people with direct meditative experience of the mind. If its proven otherwise I guess I'll have to change my view.

zenff

Fair enough, I guess where I come down though, is that in the absense of evidence, I err on the side of the experience of 2,500 years of people with direct meditative experience of the mind. If its proven otherwise I guess I'll have to change my view.

Okay.
I think the burden of proof is on the believers not on the skeptics.

Also I met quite a few meditators and they had no supernatural powers (or they were masters in hiding them).

We could play this kind of ping-pong for ever though, without ever reaching common ground.
Maybe I’ll stop playing this game from here.

person

@zenff Agreeing to disagree is fine with me.

budding_flower

And why did you choose to become a skeptic in the first place @zenff?? You could have chosen to accept things in a more 'loose' way, but you chose to become a skeptic... Why did you choose that path? If you don't want to answer to my inquiries its fine with me...

With metta budding_flower...

zenff

And why did you choose to become a skeptic in the first place @zenff??
With metta budding_flower...

Okay, I can’t resist.

Being a Buddhist ìs being a skeptic.
We don’t take things for granted we investigate.
We don’t take the suttas for fixed and Absolute Truth.

The reason I give some weight to the issue is that I’ve seen too many devout Buddhists.
They worship the Buddha, and he wouldn’t have liked that (says my gut).
They hope to reach some very exotic state of mind - called Enlightenment - and it prevents them from waking up to what is here and now.

The Buddha was a human being and so are you; so am I.
Being a Buddha is nothing special.
Practice doesn’t get us the special applications.

We don’t get things we lose some.

Whoknows

Hi @Zenff,

If you investigate and "find" (whatever) are you going to broadcast this finding? I think in the act of searching the desire to broadcast would cease. Don't get me wrong, I know nothing, yet I suspect that those who do, would not.

I'm away from here now, it was interesting for a while but not really useful. See ya

Jeffrey

Synchronicity Zenff. I read this article this morning and I think it echoes a lot of what you say: http://www.chronicleproject.com/stories_272.html

zenff

I love the article.
Thanks!