Thanks for sharing your perspective, I really enjoyed reading that. For me I am way too ignorant of the limits of our mind's internal generative capability to even start needing an external agency for experiences like channeling. I'm pretty sure that is well within the wheelhouse of our mind's abilities.
The ability to open up the brain's endorphin dumping capacity is not exactly chopped liver, even without it being a glimpse of another world of beings. I think we need more study of what it means. One weird thing is how over the experience of hyper bliss states I am now. They were such a big part of my life at one time and now I have zero interest in them no matter how enjoyable they once were. They seem too content free or something. I believe that if they were actually the goal of human life (and putting to the side the whole bliss is not blissful song and dance for now) I would not have grown out of an interest in them. All fascinating stuff to think about especially with the experiences we have all had of altered states. I'm really glad I spent the time I did to at least realize that the mystics are just bullshitting about their experiences. But that doesn't mean they are interpreting them properly, and given the pre-disposition toward grandiosity in most traditional systems, I find that unlikely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@...> wrote: > > Wow, this is very well written Curtis. I was nearly atheist when I began TM > in 1974 and soon began to feel some bliss and all that jazz which over time > warmed me up to the idea of God again. Honestly I don't know what the hell > anything is going to be once we drop the body. > > Sometimes I like the idea of a personal God, then others I read things like > Michael Roads the Aussie farmer who had all the wild experiences of > awareness, - when you read his Journey into Oneness, I think it is, he feels > the awareness of the Universal Mind, feels all the joy and suffering of > humanity all at once and he experiences it as all OK cause the Universal Mind > is totally at peace within itself. > > I am not even sure we will get the straight skinny when we die - it could > just be more dreams and made up stuff only without a body. > > Its fascinating that the monks believed the Absolute was the silence of God > but not God Himself. I always thought of it the other way, at least from the > Hindu/Vedic/TM perspective where the Pure Awareness underlies all creation > and the first sprouting of that Presence is God. > > Your statement "Experiencing" a god doesn't mean there really is one" is a > powerful expression of something I think I understand. I don't know if you > read any of the posts I wrote recently telling of my experiences with > channeling. It was something I sort of happened upon and to this day I don't > know if its real or made up bullshit (can't wait for my "fans" here to > comment) The only reason I ever did it was the feeling of energy I > experienced - it was like transcending but 100 times deeper and more > blissful. > > It was never about transmission of words or information but a way to sit in > the energy for a period of time and enjoy. Even when I was channeling some > Archangel, I wondered if it is real or not, just like I sometimes in > meditation have wondered if I am feeling bliss due to being aware of Pure > Awareness or is it some endorphin induced brain gymnastics. > > Sometimes I question not only most of the New Age stuff (believe me I have > some friends who believe in all kinds of wild stuff) but also the vedic > perspective - sometimes I sit there and think "Who the heck said the Indians > got it right except the Indians themselves or at least the gurus said they > did. > > If the point of view and experience of Michael Roads is correct, that God is > there but so all pervasive and aloof I guess it would take an act of will to > open yourself to God. So that is my rambling tonight. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 9:51 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: And so this is Christmas > > >  > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > Do you recall what the monks attitude or position on his attitude towards > > Christianity? > > They were not bothered by Maharishi's fundamentalist Hindu perspective. They > still believed that he was theologically wrong and that his soul was in peril > for not using meditation for developing a personal relationship with God. > For them the absolute was the silence of God, but not God himself. They > liked TM at first as a nice preparation for them to do their prayer. These > were mystically oriented monks who were big on experience. For them the act > of will was required to open yourself to God even within the silence of > meditation. The whole mechanical means of God realization was anathema to > their POV. > > When TM advocates glibly mouth Maharishi's statements about TM fulfilling the > purpose of Christianity, it reflects Maharishi's own ethnocentric ignorance > of what the tenants of Christianity require. > > Over time the difference in world view accompanied by their belief that > people could get lost in the absolute and never reach God led the monks to > devise their own meditation ripping off some of Maharishi's best instruction > of TM and including what could be compared to doing sunyama on the name of > Jesus and sometimes a phrase including his name. > > Personally I believe that both approaches reflect the lack of a more modern > understanding of how our minds work, so that all internal experiences are > viewed through an ancient, and I would claim archaic, filter. "Experiencing" > a god doesn't mean there really is one, it means that our minds have the > capacity to generate this kind of experience given certain pre-conditions. I > don't think humans have a very good track record in this area. We not only > suck at this, we are perversely endowed with an unwarranted confidence, a > surety when interpreting the meaning of our inner experiences. It is a > predictable result of entertaining altered states that we exhibit this > cognitive gap. > > Thanks for asking, so what is your perspective on this? > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 7:37 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: And so this is Christmas > > > > > > à> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > > > Wow - wonder who's point of view is the true one? > > > > They both accurately express the two versions of his teaching, what sounds > > the best for PR and what he taught to people he trusted more with his > > candid opinion. > > > > But even as he tries to give positive marketing lip service to > > Christianity, he was expressing his view that Christianity's true goals > > should mirror the Hindu religion's emphasis on Self-realization. It does > > not, and him claiming it doesn't make it so. This contempt for the goals > > of Christianity was not a point missed by the meditating monks I knew. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: nablusoss1008 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 6:28 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: And so this is Christmas > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > If MMY did have a negative view of Christianity it was because of what > > > > he saw as its emphasis on suffering, which was directly contrary to his > > > > message that life is bliss. In that sense he had a disagreement with > > > > the interpreters of Christianity down through the ages, not with the > > > > founder himself. In an interview with a Swiss journalist in Majorca on > > > > November 23, 1971, Maharishi said, "I love Christ very much." He also > > > > said in the same interview, "TM is a friend of Christianity because it > > > > takes awareness to the field that Christ wanted everyone to enjoy." > > > > Then he added,"No Christian should suffer; it is not necessary. It is > > > > not good to propagate suffering in the name of Christ." He also used to > > > > refer to Christ as "Lord Christ." > > > > > > Maharishi on Christianity: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIWqJ8tJ8JU > > > > > >
