Folks might want to look up _The Problem of Pure Consciousness_ edited by Robert C Foreman. Interestingly enough, Skip Alexander was originally going to contribute a chapter on the physiology of pure consciousness, but the publisher told the editor that this was a no- no for one reason or another (something about it not fitting with the rest of the book).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /0195059808/qid=1119182564/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1687161- 5694326?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Editorial Reviews Book Description Are mystical experiences formed by the mystic's cultural background and concepts, as "constructivists" maintain, or do mystics sometimes transcend language, belief, and culturally conditioned expectations? Do mystical experiences differ throughout the various religious traditions, as "pluralists" contend, or are they somehow ecumenical? The contributors to this collection scrutinize a common mystical experience, the "pure consciousness event"--the experience of being awake but devoid of intentional content--in order to answer these questions. Through the use of historical Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish mystical writings, as well as those of modern mystics, the contributors reveal the inconsistencies and inadequacies of current models, and make significant strides towards developing new models for the understanding of mystical phenomenon, in particular, and of human experience, in general.--This text refers to the Paperback edition. --- In [email protected], "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Still being one of those "waking state" seekers of "enlightenment" > myself, I would agree that I might be defensively attached to a > particular and no doubt limiting view and understandings of it. > However it does seem that people with "experiences" of enlightenment > in this forum, and more generally outside it, seem themselves > also "attached" to explanations or descriptions that don't correlate > much between eachother. For instance you have MMY followers using > typical TMO lingo, versus Buddhists finding no God or Self in > enlightenment as gainst Christian mystics whose expositions have > another character altogether. Could it be, I wonder sometimes, that > enlightenment is a real phenomenon but idiosyncratic, depending on > brain chemistry on one hand and cultural heritage on the other, and > there is no way of establishing the "superiority" of one claim > against another; also that we are dealing here ultimately with > purely "subjective" experiences and accounts, however lofty, sacred, > universal etc one might experience them as being "ultimate reality". > However unlike drug-induced experiences, "enlightenment" is a natural > human capacity and beneficial. > > , although aware of the and yes at times > --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- shanti2218411 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ---Actually I think your response makes my point > > > since for you my > > > description of my experience of unboundedbess > > > changing"isn't > > > really real,but really clever" while on the other > > > hand I think my > > > experience of unboundedness has changed in the way I > > > described.However > > > the way I described this change apparently doesn't > > > make sense to you > > > and therefore doesn't seem "real" to you.Which of > > > course points out > > > the difficulty if not the futility of trying to > > > describe changes in > > > the experience of conciousness.I think this is one > > > of the reasons why > > > its probably a good idea not to say too much about > > > your expereinces. > > > Kevin > > > > I see people reacting to reports of "spiritual" > > experiences in two ways. The first is healthy. The > > experiences inspire and can challenge the belief > > systems of the listener. Discussion can lead to a much > > deeper understanding of these experiences and the > > nature of evolution of consciousness. An authentic > > growth of understanding and insight has occurred. The > > other response is purely defensive. The experiences > > challenge the listeners belief system but there is so > > much invested in that belief system that they reject > > the experience outright. Unless experience conforms to > > the waking state model of enlightenment they are > > defensively attached to, it is invalid and the person > > is at best delusional and at worst intentionally > > sowing seeds of doubt (i.e., an agent of the "dark > > forces"). These people confuse their emotional > > investment in their belief system with divine > > "intuition". They never question their beliefs: > > they're fanatics. A possibly very dangerous place to > > be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
