--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > Well, not everyone accepts the "universal being" schtick > > > that is basically a Hindu interpretation of the TC state. > > > As I have pointed out before, a strong atheist might well > > > attain "God Consciousness" or "Unity Consciousness' ala > > > MMY's definitions and still remain a strong atheist. > > > > > > Just because YOU can't conceive of that happening doesn't > > > mean its impossible, or even unlikely. If these states > > > really ARE natural states of consciousness, then the number > > > of interpretations of the states will be unlimited. > > > > Did you stop taking your medication again? > > In fact, no, but I suspect you might want to consider > a medication regimen of your own, given how inappropriate > your response was to my statement.
Just in case no one else does, I have to agree with Lawson here. I considered his response one of the most *balanced* I have seen here in some time, which is a tribute both to him and to the wisdom of his doctors. Lawson nails the real issue in this issue. It's not really about one's experience of the TC state; it's about how one interprets that experience. Some, like Rick Ross, might experience a sense of transcendence of self and be so terrified by that experience that they dedicate the rest of their lives to trying to make sure that no one else has a similar experience. Others may interpret TC in terms of the ways they were taught to interpret it in Hinduism. Or Buddhism. Or even atheism. The experience of TC may or may not be "the same" from experiencer to experiencer. But the *interpretation* of that experience? How could that *ever* be the same, given the disparity in what we have been taught about what such an experience might "mean?" Someone who can recognize that is not "off their meds." That was a cheap shot.
