--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Turq, I am unable to keep up these conversations in real > time, but I have some comments in the exchanges below.
I'll follow up a little, now that I've had my coffee, and try to explain to you why I'm not following up any more than I am. You are a newb here, and unaware to some extent of the history of this place. There are a few people here whose idea of fun is having "conversations" that resemble two bulldogs tugging at the same bone. They can go on and on and on and on about the things they "debate." Some have been known to try to draw out such discussions for weeks, or longer. It's almost as if they believe that someone can "win" or "prove themselves right" about matters of pure opinion (as, IMO, all assertions of spiritual 'truth' are). This is just not my idea of fun. I prefer throwing out ideas, for no other purpose than playing with them, and to see whether anyone else can have fun playing with them, too. The conversations I like the best are largely composed of what some would demonize as "non-sequiturs," where one person throws out Idea A, the next jumps to Idea Z because he or she sees a link between the two, and the third maybe jumps to Idea M. I see no need to pursue the forms of traditional, linear "debate" when discussing ideas for fun. You strike me as being somewhat of the bulldog mentality. That's fine, if it floats yer boat, but please don't expect it to float mine. When I get a whiff of someone who seems to want to "lock horns" and turn what could be a pleasant, short-lived exchange of opinions into a long, protracted exchange or debate, my first impulse is to blow the person off and do something more interesting, like washing my socks. I understand that you have questions about the experiences I presented *for informational purposes only*, and I wish you luck in finding "answers" to them. I have none for you. I am not selling anything here, least of all my opinion as anything but opinion. IMO none of my ideas are worth forming attachments to, and none are worth "defending." As for your comments about me reacting to either criticism or appreciation of what I write the same way (not at all), that in my opinion is a compliment. Thank you for noticing. You may see these things differently, and that is your right. Might I suggest, if you want to get into long, protracted discussions here, that you pick someone on this forum who enjoys such things. I do not. > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have > > > encountered one teacher that could in the space of a few > > > days get a fair number of persons to experience a shift > > > in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. > > > If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, > > > do they have names? > > > > Yes, but they would do you no good. Two of the four > > I've met are now dead, and the other two I have heard > > went back to Bhutan, and are no longer working with > > non-Bhutanese or non-Tibetan students. They gave work- > > ing with Westerners a shot on teaching tours and > > (from what I am told) now prefer to work only with > > people who can make a longer-term commitment. They > > didn't like the "drop in" approach. > > > > > And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast > > > an SOC? > > > > I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective > > experience of working with these teachers. > > > > > I am asking this because your description makes it sound like > > > a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? > > > > Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the > > past about "darshan," being able to put on a SOC so > > powerfully that others in the audience could be in > > the same room and somehow "recognize" in the teacher's > > SOC the counterpart of a "matching" SOC that was within > > them, just not realized yet, and as a result "access" it. > > That's a more "non-doing" theory, but this is pure spec- > > ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only > > *that* it was done. > > > > > It makes me think of something like in old science fiction > > > movies (say 1940) where the doctor says "If I can just get to > > > the laboratory I can create a ray which will change his SOC." > > > > It sounds completely "science fictiony," until you have > > experienced it. Having done so does not make it in the > > least more understandable or less fantastic; but you've > > had the subjective experience. > > > > > With the material you presented here, it seems like you could > > > have just made this up. > > > > I could have, but I didn't. On the other hand, if it pleases > > you to consider it fiction, that is your right and I won't > > spend even the tiniest bit of effort trying to convince you > > otherwise. I don't understand it myself; I just experienced it. > > And clearly I'm not attempting to "sell" it to anyone, because > > as far as I know there is nothing to sell any more. You may > > treat what I wrote however you want. I wrote it because I ran > > into some old friends and we got to talking about this form > > of teaching (which we all have experienced), and that was > > fresh in my mind. I wrote what I wrote (as I often do) in an > > attempt to clarify *for myself* some of the discussions we > > had and the thoughts still rattling around in my head as a > > result. > > > > > It is a great story idea, but how could someone find out that > > > what you say here is real? > > > > Even worse, if you experienced it yourself, how could you > > convince *yourself* that it was real, much less anyone else? :-) > > The reason I brought this up is what I experienced was different, at least in > the manner in which it arose. Prior to TM, I had tried various other things. > One of these things was a teaching environment in which a person's system of > belief was essentially in a situation where it would not work. It was > constantly under attack. Eventually, at least for some in this environment, > one would just let go, some obstacle or idea, or stress, whatever you want to > call it would blow off and there would be an experience of 'expanded > consciousness,' a feeling of great relief, a lot of bliss, a real high. > Eventually the high would retreat and experience closed down again, but it > would last for several days, and even after it closed down, one was not back > to square one, one was changed in some way, at least a small part of the > experience remained. > > Sometimes these experiences, once triggered this way would happen > spontaneously, completely unbidden, when taking a walk, or driving. Each time > it blew something off, and things felt freer afterward. > > This is different than taking a drug for example. One can get high on a > psychotropic drug like LSD. These experiences can be fantastic. But > afterward, nothing remains, no growth, no feeling freer, no sense one's > experience has expanded in any way. Spiritual growth, if one wants to call it > that and make it sound like a progression, has a progressive quality to it > unlike an artificial chemical high that is induced, and then retreats. It is > like the brain is rewired in some way. > > So, when I questioned the reality of what you said happened to you, about > these guys projecting an SOC it was because 1} My experiences opened in a > different way, and 2) the putting on of SOCs as if putting on a series of > hats did not fit in what I had either experienced before, or understood, from > what I had heard or read before. It is unfamiliar, so I have more questions > about what you experienced. > > In your own words, how would you describe the experience you had with these > guys from Bhutan? I mean some detail of the experiences highlighted in the > questions following. > > How long did it take before you experienced a shift in your awareness? > > Did you have some idea, that is intellectual understanding, of what you were > experiencing at the time? Or did that come later. > > How persistent was the experience, that is how long did it last? > > Did you feel transformed afterward? Or did you feel you returned to your > usual SOC whatever that might have been at the time. > > Since these guys were 'projecting' this, were you left with any ability to do > it yourself after you were out of their presence, like what percent of what > they projected, could you recreate, if any? > > How many different SOCs did you experience? Did these correspond to the TMO > SOC scheme, or was it something less or more complicated? > > After shifting out of one them into another, did you lose the ability to > experience what the other was like? This question is prompted by my > experience that when the awareness shifts, I only can appreciate the current > live state, that is, everything is experienced from the POV of the current > state, and while the memory of another state might be there, its essential > quality is not. > > Some states are more 'whole' than others, so when they go, if they go, it is > experienced as a loss, as if something wonderful is missing. If a less > 'whole' state is replaced by a more 'whole' one, and it seems to be stable, > it's like relief, that that previous state will not happen again. Eventually > it seems as if the differences that I call 'states of consciousness' become > less and less, as if these differences which seemed real in the beginning, > were some kind of aberrant thinking. I am not quite sure how to say this, but > basically it is the world is as I experience it. However I experience it at > the moment, that is all there is to it. > > > > > That's the position I'm in. > > > > > Remember, walking the path is fine. We all do this. But the > > > idea is for the path to go away... > > > > According to whom? Not according to me. For me, the path > > is just for the walking, without any fixed destination or > > goal. > > According to me. Maybe we are using the word path in different ways. We can > call our entire life a path. Whatever we do, whether we are ignorant, > enlightened, stupid, smart, this path is our entire life. The 'spiritual > path' I am calling a subset of this life path. The spiritual path is > something we make up when we get the idea in our head that there is something > called a spiritual path. It has a goal, and we do things in pursuit of this > goal. The problem with this path is it is illusory, but we cannot know this > unless this quest has a certain amount of success. Then we realise that this > path does not really exist, we had tricked ourselves into thinking it was > real. This is what I meant when I said the path goes away. Our motivation to > follow it goes away, even if we sense there is more to come, our approach to > whatever that 'more' is, changes. The life path, our whole life, that path, > whatever we do, that remains, at least as long as we are alive, and we can > call it a path, but it has no goal, it just goes on. If you want (especially > if you have free will) you can pretend any kind of subset to your life, and > you can fix, temporarily, a goal, like going to a blues festival, or having a > cup of coffee. > > Does that clear up the discrepancy between what I said and what you said, or > does that discrepancy remain? > > > > ...and before it does, it is not all groovy and enjoyable, > > > some really difficult experiences can arise. > > > > Speak for yourself. Attempts to speak for everyone don't > > usually impress me very much. :-) > > I said these darker experiences can arise. I am speaking for myself. They are > not guaranteed to arise. Maybe you never had any. Great. I have had some, I > have known a lot of people who have had rough experiences. I think they are > common, but not everybody has had them. I was speaking for myself and some > others. It was an extrapolation to speak of them for many, but it is > logically reasonable. But there is no evidence this applies to all. > > > > > Some day "maybe" we can "discuss" your "extensive" use of > > > quote "marks." > > > > Or not. I care as little about what you think of my writing > > style as I do what you think of its content. Really. > > OK. I may be wrong in this, but I have the idea you are afraid to commit your > feelings to the particulars of your life, that you dearly like enjoyment > etc., but that you don't want the possibility of the opposite, like grief, or > disappointment. You get a lot of flak on this forum, but you seem to kind of > side-step it. I think you put people off, keep them at a safe distance so > they do not entrap you. You brush off compliments and criticism off-handedly > or by attempting to put the encumbrance of the argument on the person > responding to you. Or it could be my surmise here is just wrong, and you are > truly unattached. But non attachment does not lead to disengagement nor does > it lead to not fully entering into the particulars of one's life - > physically, emotionally, intellectually. Non attachment enables you to engage > more, and more directly. And I am saying this so don't reply 'says who?,' > assuming you reply. > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > You added some additional comments in this post: > > > > > > > > > And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast > > > > an SOC? > > > > > > I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective > > > experience of working with these teachers. > > > > > > > I am asking this because your description makes it sound like > > > > a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? > > > > > > Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the > > > past about "darshan," being able to put on a SOC so > > > powerfully that others in the audience could be in > > > the same room and somehow "recognize" in the teacher's > > > SOC the counterpart of a "matching" SOC that was within > > > them, just not realized yet, and as a result "access" it. > > > That's a more "non-doing" theory, but this is pure spec- > > > ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only > > > *that* it was done. > > > > One facet of this that most intrigues me, because it > > is such a "game changer" compared to almost all other > > descriptions of different states of consciousness, is > > that these folks had the ability to "put on" a state > > of consciousness *at will*. > > > > Think about that. The model most of us have been > > presented with along the spiritual path is that SOCs > > are "achieved" or "realized," but then you're kinda > > stuck with them. You "get to" CC, but you can't then > > put on the consciousness of normal waking state if > > you want to, say, for teaching purposes. Similarly, > > if you "get to" UC, you can't then "backtrack" during > > a talk on GC and temporarily "wear" that state of > > consciousness in order to model it or demo it for > > your students. > > > > These guys could. They could change states of conscious- > > ness more quickly than you can change clothes. They > > weren't "stuck in" *any* of them. I find that not only > > fascinating, but far more impressive than the traditional > > model of unidirectional, linear progression through the > > different states of consciousness. > > > > At least one of them spoke about this. In his opinion, > > all of these states of consciousness were *congruent*, > > meaning that they were simultaneously present at all > > times. You merely accessed the state you wanted. There > > was no "achieving" or "realization" needed, merely the > > decision to select from a "menu of available options." > > This is the model I use, that all these states are congruent, but I have > never experienced what you are talking of here, that one can select them at > will. I have experienced a progression, and a falling back, and a > progression, and falling back less and so on. I have no desire to experience > from a menu, just the container of the menu. Has anyone else on this forum > experienced what Turq is describing here? I am still not convinced he is not > trying to pull one over on me. But I do know from experience that it is > possible to experience a rapid shift in SOC and have it shift back. If there > is anyone on the forum in CC (as in the MMY system) that would like to > experience just waking consciousness again? > > > > > Clearly, these guys all believed in free will. :-) > > > > Please bear in mind that none of these people believed > > in the "seven states of consciousness" as presented by > > Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that > > is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking > > about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. > > Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its "ten thousand > > states of mind" (which is a euphemism for "lots and lots > > of them, possibly an infinite number of them" not a number > > per se). > > I would agree that cutting up the consciousness pie can be done many > different ways. The phrase 'ten thousand states of mind' reminds me of the > phrase 'the ten thousand things' in Taoist literature, a phrase that means > infinite number of things, but maybe the Chinese had no word for the concept > infinity at the time, and 'ten thousand things' made do for that. The idea > applies to the fragmentation of experience into discrete entities. >
