--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Some comedian said that. I forget which one. > But, as far as I can tell, he nailed it. Reality > IS a concept.
1980 comedy album by Robin Williams: http://tinyurl.com/2gopuu > > I'm just not convinced that the concept has...uh... > reality *outside* of being a concept. > > My experience, and the words of a few teachers I > respect, has shown me that there are many realities, > probably as many as their are points of view. And, > to me, UC or BC as defined by Maharishi are Just > Two More Points Of View. What individuals in this > state of consciousness see is Just What They See, > not reality. > > So for me reality is an empty concept; it doesn't > float my boat. It just doesn't have any "legs" as > philosophical concepts go. Others may find the > concept fascinating. So it goes. > > I'm more comfortable with realities. As in one or > more for every point of view in the universe. As > in Maharishi's "Knowledge is structured in consc- > iousness." As in Castaneda's "A Separate Reality." > > Reality kinda loses its meaningfulness when you've > sat in the desert and been flipped in and out of > dozens of states of consciousness in an hour, and > in and out of an equal number of the *realities* > that "go with" each of those states of consciousness. > > In one of those states of consciousness, it's just > a normal night out in the desert. You've got yer > stars, the sand, the wind, a bunch of humans sitting > in a circle watching another human as he stands in > the center of the circle. > > In another of those states of consciousness, the > human in the center of the circle steps up off the > sand and walks around about three feet off the ground. > In another the stars start to move around. In another > the human in the center of the circle disappears. In > yet another, *you* disappear. > > Which of these was "reality?" Which not? > > I think they were all reality -- from a particular > set of points of view and states of consciousness, > as seen by individuals who don't exist, at a certain > moment in time, which also doesn't exist. :-) > > The thing that I think Castaneda just nailed in his > books is not that each of these separate realities > have different sets of rules -- operating systems > or laws of nature -- that apply to them. They also > require different states of consciousness to be *in* > them. You can't fully remember these states of consc- > iousness and their attendant realities *after* you're > no longer *in* them. You can't even fully *conceive* > of what they were from a different state of conscious- > ness and point of view and *its* reality. It's just > the most frustrating thing in the world. > > But at the same time, it's a heckuva lot of fun. > > I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems > to be a concept that people whose realities don't > change very quickly are interested in. They stay in > pretty much the same state of consciousness for long > periods of time. When reality changes on you more > quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you > lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least > I did. > > I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there > being a Saganesque "billions and billions" of realities. > That poses no problem for me whatsoever. > > Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me? >
