Authentic Buddha Dharma That Is Irrefutable And Scientifically Incontrovertible (News Item)

Thought this news item was interesting. Not an endorsement.


Source(s)? . . . . .

1 Like

Thanks. How many imprints are on those walls?

In my readings on the practice of Inner Heat Yoga there are numerous references to siddhis as supernatural achievements and events that can come from advanced and persistent practice.

Naropa was reputed to have physically flown through the air like an arrow as well as accomplishing other paranormal physical phenomena.

I am reminded of those impossibly balanced stones that I witnessed during a period of pretty intense practice. Unworldly things can be presented to us when we see through the limiting veil of this illusory world.


Displaying siddhis openly is frowned upon by several high lamas. After all, if every action has its effect, the question comes up, what will showing siddhis cause as effect? With those who display the siddhis and those who hear about or see them?
How will egos deal with the prospect of having the power of siddhis?
How would this change the way one approaches one‘s practice and its goals?

That seems to be one of the reasons why they are usually not shown openly. The young 17th Karmapa supposedly left a hand imprint in the rocks integrated in the construction of a new temple as a thank you for the faithful builders. That imprint was shortly after covered so as to not be a public display.

There are traditional stories of lamas who have not achieved the rainbow body due to their attachment to their siddhis.
I find it interesting that the article is riffing on the concept that since a siddhi was supposedly shown here, this would be „irrefutablly“ the proof of enlightenment of the one performing the siddhi…
The hyperlinks lead even further and other traditions are challenged to engage in a proposed compition of siddhi display to prove their legitimacy… hmmm… I don‘t know if I find that sort of message very spiritually mature or even enlightened…

Siddhis are usually seen as byproducts of the development of mental capacity, such as deep shamata or tantric practices. Equating the display of siddhis with the realisation of enlightenment seems to me problematic.


All that you said in that post makes great sense to me.


Performing (faked?) magic tricks seems like a great way of motivating the credulous. “Scientifically Incontrovertible”? Looking forward to reading a bunch of peer reviewed studies from reliable sources providing evidence for these claims.

Also, it’s SUPER convenient that it’s widely considered bad form to openly display siddhis. I mean, sure that makes it hard to prove to skeptics, but the real reason is because of the effect that it has on egos. :thinking:

I remain unconvinced that the universe is a videogame with cheat codes you can find to violate the laws of physics – although I can definitely think of reasons why people might want to convince others and/or themselves of that.


1 Like

But what if the laws of physics are, themselves, just another illusion?

Folks like Donald Hoffman would contend that they are. Perhaps there are hidden pathways to a more underlying essence, one that allows for those laws of physics but also reveals an even deeper fundamental reality.






Not really…these phenomena are not happening in a physical body. Dreams are illusory in nature. The dream body is an illusory body and those cool dreamscapes are mere images.

Of course, the images of the waking state are illusory in nature as well but that is another discussion. :wink:


Actually, I agree with a lot of your points, and I, for sure, did not write anything in this thread wanting to convince anyone of anything. I am not associated with this dharma group and am per se very sceptical of such reports :

I cannot comment on the veracity of these events of this specific article, but one should always be sceptical, especially the way this article is written and asking oneself which interests a dharma organisation follows by publishing this and spreading the underlying message…

:wink: Yes, probably one will indeed not find any scientifically validated proof of this specific claim.

:wink: A good slice of sarcasm is needed from time to time, I agree, but I think a sceptical mind needs also to be careful not to generalize and negate an unknown possibility, just because in its view it has not been scientifically validated yet, or does not fit into its world view. A scientist would never negate a theory per se because it has not been empirically proven to him yet, right?

If siddhis exist, personally, I think the mentioned reasons to not bragg about them are quite valid and ethical. Nothing to do with convenience.

If siddhis do not exist, then keeping up the appearance of “not wanting to display and talk about them” would indeed be part of a con-scheme.

Generally, I am rather a sceptic, too. I do not want to be “convinced by somebody” and I often ask the old latin “qui bono?” when hearing or reading narratives.
I personally think siddhis are possible, but this is not based on proof. It is belief on the basis of what can be read from traditional texts (e.g. about the “dyhanas”-stages of samadhi) and the hesitant, humble but sincere answers some tibetan lamas gave me when I asked them.
But, to be fair, according to Shamata-texts, if you are willing to explore and put in the effort, one can reach Samadhi and the first dyhana-stage. B.Alan Wallace riffs about it in the nightclub interview a bit.

I guess in order to truely know about something first person - not wanting to rely on other’s narratives - one has to be willing to invest and explore with an open mind in order to validate it or refute it. What do you think?


I think this is a tough one. When it comes to paranormal/supernatural phenomena such as this there is nothing like truly experiencing something on a noumenal, first person level. I am also a skeptic.

It seems as though by the time one reaches a level where siddhis are made manifest to him or her they will be beyond a point where it is all that important.


Yeah . . . . . . . . . .

1 Like

Nah, same discussion. :mask: Andrew Holececk tells a story about a teaching in Bodhgaya where a Rinpoche told him the reason he can’t walk through the wall is not because the wall is solid, but because he’s too solid.

1 Like


The thing is…even in a lucid dream that’s the case. I try to push my finger through my palm and I have to work at it to get it through. Just the other night I jumped off the railing of my back deck and just barely stayed aloft at first. My body just felt too heavy…even in the dream.

So…are we creating those laws of physics in our minds? :wink:


Where else? :alien: :alien: :skull:

1 Like

Is this outside pure awareness?

1 Like

According to folks like Hoffman, Rupert Spira, Peter Russell and Neil Theise, all phenomena that we are aware of are constructs of Consciousness…including, of course, ourselves. That said, however, I think they may really be saying that all that we perceive is a construct of Consciousness.

In my mind it is entirely possible that in moments of pure awareness, that is, the 250 ms before our conditioned perception takes over, we may be getting glimpses of that most fundamental plane to which they refer.

I think we can do deep research in lucid dreams as we may have access to deeply buried knowledge.


So does that mean there are phenomena that we cannot ever know despite the highest state of consciousness, outside of Buddha-consciousness, which we are all assumed to have?

My understanding of Buddha-consciousness as a fundamental state of pure unconditioned knowing meshes pretty well with the “Consciousness Only” theory which says that all experiences and phenomena, including space and time, rise from Consciousness.

Rather then being a higher state of consciousness (little c), Consciousness is a fundamental state from which all awareness arises.

Another way I have seen this fundamental state described is that mind is the activity of Consciousness through which Consciousness refracts itself into an apparent multiplicity and diversity of objects and selves.