--- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" > <jstein@> wrote: > > > [snip] > > The *experience*, or at least my experience, is that > > something else *is* going on, but I have no idea what. > > The most I can say is that hopping feels involuntary, > > like a sneeze, and that it feels as though it's > > triggered by an impulse generated by the sutra (or in > > a group setting, sometimes by an impulse generated by > > somebody else doing the sutra). > [snip] > > Anyway, when somebody insists nothing out of the > > ordinary is happening, I can only say that's not my > > experience; and that if they were to have the same > > experience, they would have to acknowledge that at > > least an out-of-the-ordinary *experience* is taking > > place. Maybe that's all it is. But I doubt it's all > > just "suggestion." I don't know how you *could* > > "suggest" some of the experiences when they're > > virtually impossible to describe. > > That was very interesting. Thanks. I see it the same > way. > > There is no doubt in my mind that something very odd > (and therefore very interesting) IS going on. I do > think it *might* be an artefact of something like > hypnosis, suggestion or group hysteria (which, rather > like *explanations* of puzzling phenomena by "*just* > placebo" might only have the effect of removing the > mystery from place A and putting it into place B IMO. > A point that I think Barry has made on occasions).
Yup yup yup. I think I can pretty much rule out "group hysteria" in my own case because I've gone for long stretches without doing it in a group. The solo experiences aren't as "lively," but they don't diminish over time. And again, neither hypnosis nor suggestion seems reasonable to me given that it's just about impossible to communicate what some of the experiences are like. How can anything be suggested that can't be clearly described? What it boils down to for me, at the very least, is that strange, powerful experiences (not even referring to hopping per se, but the ancillary stuff) can be generated by the mental repetition of a few words that don't even really make much sense. I mean, that's just weird. That ties into what I said to Hugo about some of the experiences people have had on psychedelics. Where the hell do they *come* from? > I'm not sure anyone knows too much about hypnosis, > suggestion, group hysteria etc. But there are two > ideas that I think I've heard - one of which counts > against the *something profound happening* idea, and > one which perhaps supports it. > > Isn't it true that there is supposed to be a small > proportion of the population that can't be hypnotised? > Perhaps, say 10%? So the fact that there seems to be > ditto a small number who never *hop* might suggest > that what's going is not incompatible with hypnosis or > some such? If this IS a solid fact about hypnosis (big > "if"), then it would be interesting to see if it was > the SAME percentage that fails to attain lift off? Possibly. I'm pretty sure I'm on the low end of the suggestibility range, based on my non-TM-related experience. (Just as one example of many, given my political and social views, I should have been a sucker for Obama as far back as his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. I had great expectations for that speech, but despite its rapturous reception, I was disappointed. And I kept hoping I'd been wrong well into primary season but just never could tune in to what so many other people found irresistably compelling.) > The other thing though about hypnosis (eg as a cure > for smoking) is that I believe the effects wear off > over time. Which is why hypnosis, though effective, is > not ultimately much use. (Heavy disclaimer on all of > this. I've probably got it all wrong!). I think you'll find hypnosis "experts" who deny both premises (the first in particular) as well as those who support one or another or both. But as you say, we don't have a really good handle on hypnosis to begin with. > Now I don't do my Siddhi program regularly any more > (I'm "retro" i.e. just pure TM for me. "A la Shemp" > you might say). Furthermore when I DID do it, it was > often not in a group. But my experience was (and is) > that (a) I did just as well in or out of the group, > and (b) even after a gap of years and years, I have > been able to revisit it and get pretty much the same > experience. That suggest to me that there *might* be > some difficulty in the idea that it is *just* > hypnosis, suggestion or hysteria. For me, as noted, the group experience is "livelier" than solo, but I always hop either way (long time since I've been in a group). Can't speak to (b), though. The materialist types wouldn't accept either (a) or (b) as evidence. As you rightly suggest above, they have such profound faith in the power of suggestion to account for most any subjective experience that rather than solving the mystery, it just moves it from one place to another.
