--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I recall a guy on our sidhis course who talked about seeing > > Gurudev floating in lotus > > > position on a lottos blossom floating in a fountain of cherry > > juice. The Sidhis Course Administrator blinked a few times and > > carefully said "we might chalk that up to 'beautiful > > > unstressing...'" > > > > > > > > > Lawson > > > > > Nice image!...sounds like the Sidhis Course Administrator didn't > > have a clue. > > This exchange lies at the heart of one of my favorite questions: By > what criteria do we evaluate the validity of subjective experiences? > The person on the course with the Guru Dev Float with a cherry on top > was using the authority of the administrators, and presumably > Maharishi who trained them, to judge if their subjective experience > was valid. In my experience in the movement there always seemed to be > a pretty strong skeptical angle taken on such experiences with details > like that. But if the person was to make it a bit more abstract: > > I experienced my self welling up like a fountain of sweet golden bliss > and the fullness began to manifest into the vibrations of the Veda... > > The chances that this person would get the big "attaboy" from the > powers that be would be much higher. (I think Rajas and other mighty > mites also get a pass on detailed Guru Dev, or now Maharishi, Zombie > experiences. They could tell everyone that Guru Dev played ping pong > with them that morning and the whole movement would gasp a collective > "Wow, that's heavy. You are soooo special. Would you bless my > beads...no? How about blessing my Blackberry?" > > So can others evaluate such experiences? Do people think that > Maharishi had a magical way of knowing what someone was experiencing > inside? Did he or his minions just give you a once over to see if you > appeared to be a dipshit, and if you gave off dipshit vibes they > assumed it was phony? There seemed to be an inordinate number of hot > chicks whose experiences got a positive nod...celestial vision, that > sort of thing. Does hotness give you a pass? > > I've had my own experiences, I know how compelling they feel. I've > taken the position that the mind is a wonderful thing and capable of > all sorts of detailed compelling experiences, but that we generally > suck at distinguishing fact from fantasy with subjective experiences. > > Any perspective input is welcome. And my premise is that making such > distinctions in life really does matter. > >
I'm not sure how anyone could evaluate one vision of GD as any more genuine than another unless one is symbolic of a deeper state being reached, the example of deep golden bliss bubbling up might represent the TM concept of creation from the level of the unified field. Might be a big indicator of someone really getting down to business, which is what I imagine a TM teacher would be looking out for if running a course. I've never seen anything visual like GD and would dismiss it as being pleasant but irrelevant, I think all visions of masters would be some sort of dream or hypnogogic imagery, not unreasonable for a follower of any path to see things like that, and TM often crosses from awareness to sleep. I've also always thought people's predispositions count a lot in the types of experiences they have. For instance, I knew a girl who, while menstruating, would often be visited by a spirit looking for a new bodywhen she was meditating. She was into angels and spirit guides and was after kids big time. Self fulfilling prophecy? I think so. The only experience I ever had that I had never read anything about was hearing the Ved. It was startling to the point that I jumped out of my chair. I had no idea what had just happened but it was like suddenly sticking my head into a total perspective vortex. Far out. I never mentioned it as it was years before I went on any courses. When I heard about it during a lecture on a course I told the teacher who was astonished and recommended I get on purusha pronto as the experience would stabilise. His way of evaluating it was whether I had any doubt it really happened. I think whether these things are subjective like dreams or symptomatic of altered physical brain function could be an interesting avenue to explore. Something like the hypothalamus theory Lawson related the other day. Could be the best way of evaluating them is whether it's a subjective dream type correlate of an objective phenomena.
