--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > I didn't bother to watch the video because I have > zero interest in UFOs. <snip> > I comment on your brother's experience not to dump > on it or "explain it away" or point to it and say > "See...the space brothers *do* exist you idiots... > I am right and you are all WRONG!" like Nabby might > do. I'll just make two points. > > The first is that I have met many people who saw > *something* in the sky and just assumed (because > that's how Earthlings think) that it was some kind > of *technology* that they saw. When pressed, they > all admitted that what they saw could just as easily > have been some form of light or "subtle body exper- > ience." If, for example, one encountered a being > without a physical body and with only a subtle body, > how would most Earthlings interpret that? Well, they > would consider it a "spaceship" because they have > no intellectual framework for understanding subtle > bodies. > > The second, however, is to pass along to your brother > through you how LUCKY he is to have had an experience > like this. And by "like this" I mean a subjective > experience that he can *never prove the truth of*, > but that he is willing to talk about *as* an exper- > ience. That in my opinion is a fascinating opportunity, > and one that can shift the perceiver to a new level of > perception and self-acceptance. > > Take levitation. I've seen it...hundreds of times. I > have never claimed to know *what* exactly it was that > I saw hundreds of times, only that I saw it. It really > doesn't matter to me at all whether what I saw was > "real levitation" and would have been captured by video > cameras or whether it was some projected consciousness > or mass hallucination event. Doesn't matter a bit. ALL > that matters is that I'm willing to stand up and say, > "This was my subjective experience. I do not under- > stand it and make no claims as to what it 'really was,' > but I will not *deny* having experienced it just because > me talking about it makes you uncomfortable or jealous." > > Look at Shemp. He is so apoplectic that I have had the > subjective experience of witnessing levitation -- and > hundreds of times, no less -- and that *he hasn't* > that he's spent dozens of posts over the years harbor- > ing a grudge at me and trying to demonize me over it. > And it's all nothing but pure JEALOUSY on his part. > He spent thirty or more years in spiritual pursuits > and saw and experienced diddleysquat. And it really > *burns* his ass that others had experiences he didn't. > So he wastes his time and his energy trying to demon- > ize those he's jealous of. > > The thing is, what I'd wish for him as a result is > not any kind of revenge or "payback" for all this > pissant jealousy. I'd wish that someday he has an > experience of some kind that puts him in *exactly > the same position*. Some subjective experience that > was vivid and felt real and was so extraordinary that > he cannot ignore it. But at the same time, there is > no way he can EVER prove to anyone else that he > experienced it or what it "really was." It's just > hearsay to everyone else. > > THIS is "where the rubber meets the road" in my opinion > in the world of spiritual development. Whether it is > performance of the siddhis or experience of a "higher > state of consciousness" or perception of gods or angels > or higher beings, it's ALL *one man's subjective > experience*. Nothing more. The man in question can > *never* fully "prove" the validity of or even existence > of his subjective experience. > > So what does he *DO* about this? > > The wusses *submit* to the jealousy of those around > them and stop talking about their subjective experiences. > They STFU. > > But the warriors -- the ones who actually have some spir- > itual chops -- they talk about it *anyway*, just to see > what happens. And sometimes other people believe them, > and wind up having similar experiences themselves. Or not. > But at least the strong ones stayed TRUE TO THEMSELVES. > They didn't stop talking about their own experiences > just because other people were uncomfortable or jealous > because they talked about them. > > Your brother has such an opportunity, and should cherish > it for what it is. He doesn't have to claim to know > exactly what what he saw is, only that he saw it. That, > and being willing to do it, is valuable in itself. It > shows a depth of character that the jealous ones jeering > from the sidelines will never have. >
Turq, this is good observant criticism. You're nailing around the old problem here, that experiential gulf between spiritual meditators and un-spiritual non-meditators. Between those who by experience know and those who failing for spiritual experience do not know. Is an age old disparity evidently. The difference now is that science seems to also indicate that something actually is happening and further in policy, that broader cultivated spirituality would be to everyone's benefit if everyone did it too. That is the plain of the old argument of the new age to date. The fight is about clearing fields of ignorance with knowledge, experience and science. For those who know, it is pretty clear that there is a lot of ignorance out there. The practical philosophy of science now it shows us that it is the ignorance of non-meditation which holds humanity back. That becomes the new philosophy of science in spirituality and science. Ignorant old-agers who would deny the science and free experience are what they are, Doctrinals bereft of experience, just like in medieval times. -D in FF
