Some comedian said that. I forget which one. But, as far as I can tell, he nailed it. Reality IS a concept.
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?
