--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > I am describing my own experience. That is all I have.
That is all that *anyone* has, or has had, in *any* era of human existence. The attempt to portray one's subjective experience as objective or universal or even as something to be desired or aspired to is IMO sheer narcissism. > There is just experience. Not experiences, with an > 's', but experience, singular. Experience*s* are > like sub directories or folders on a computer. It > is not uncommon these days, others on this forum > certainly seem to be experiencing something similar. If you're talking about the type of experience that people characterize as "enlightenment," it should sober up people claiming it that even *I* have had such experience. Unlike them, I didn't try to make it more than what it was -- Just Another Experience. > There are a number of people in Fairfield having this > kind of experience. And, I am confident, many others > in all walks of life having these experiences. It is > in the air. It is not just a matter of TM, there are > lots of groups and people bent on awakening and > succeeding. Interestingly, the scientific literature is full of people who have never even *heard* of enlightenment having experiences that "seekers" associate only with it, and only with having practiced "techniques" to develop such experiences. Things like witnessing during waking or sleep are common, as are moments of no-thought, and of perceptions of silence or stillness underlying (and simultaneous with) all other experience. And, of course, we probably would not have had the psychological diagnosis of dissoc- iation if people hadn't felt separate from their egos. > I say these things across the board because that is > the way I experience these things and there is some > support in the environment for this way of describing > human experience in long term meditators. None of this > is special with me. That is probably because you don't try to *make* it special with you, or characterize yourself as "special" because you've had such experience. Others should learn from your example. :-) > You have every prerogative to question (although you > have not actually questioned anything above, you have > only stated that you question it). Mapping out benchmarks > for spiritual development is a minefield because as you > said, 'I think there are likely many exceptions and > anomalies', so there are people who are not going to > fit the mold. My outline using the terms M used is just > one way one could try to map general categories of > experience. Agreed. It's a convenient "shorthand" to use on a forum like this one, where many people have not been exposed to other, possibly more precise ways of describing the experience. > For example, Charles Manson shows a number of > characteristics of unity if we examine his statements, > but he is also insane, a psychopath, and lacks certain > characteristics that a presumably normal person would > have, so he would be a significant outlier in any scheme > that purports to categorise enlightenment benchmarks. NOT in terms of the experiences themselves, just in terms of the mythical "side effects" that spiritual traditions claim for such experiences. They're "supposed" to make you all good and happy and life-supported and all that. I've never bought that, and suspect that there is no connection between these types of experience and behavior. > I have a collection of Classical music recordings. I > always have trouble trying to shelf them in some coherent > way. My system here is generally by time period and the > composer's name, using the date of death as a marker > within a time period and beyond that I can remember > where most composers lie on the time line. > > I think M's scheme for enlightenment is workable for > many people, it is more detailed than some schemes, but > in the end any scheme turns out to be nonsense, but it > has applicability for giving one a bearing while on the > path. If a person's experience is anomalous, a scheme > will appear to be wrong to that person. NO map is ever the territory. > In retrospect a scheme might even seem more on point than > when one was on the path, because when you are on the > path, you do not really know what you are headed for, or > even where you are, and a benchmark isn't a specific > experience, it is an general category of experience so > making a mistake in interpreting what is going on is > certainly a reasonable assumption. Even the belief in > a scheme might be useful just to keep you going. > > My experiences were in some ways anomalous and that led > to much doubt. I went through a long period where I did > not want to read anything about spiritual development, > meditating all the while, but just not interested in > hearing about or discussing it. Also run-of-the-mill > TM discussions can be incredibly boring. Tell me about it. :-) > At any point in a spiritual path all one really needs is > information that applies directly to what one's experience > or experiences are just at that time, and not any other > drivel; it does not always work to apply cookie cutter > templates. Unless what you want to become is a cookie. :-) > The TM movement does not really want you to look at other > stuff, but eventually that is what helped me most; I took > complete control of my 'program' away from the movement > over time because it failed to provide the information > I needed when I needed it. > > I experimented and researched. But eventually it was kind > of full circle, I ended up reading about things that > initially propelled me on the journey, and found answers > to questions I could not find easily within the TM org > and TM teachers. > > What propelled the restoration of interest in all this was > a sudden unexpected shift in experience. Everything I had > thought had failed, proved in retrospect to have been > useful, but to have had more specific information at > specific times in my life would possibly have made the > process more efficient. I'm not convinced that would be true. "Information" that told you what an experience "meant" would have been just one more bit of misinformation, after all. The experience was what it was -- nothing more, and nothing less. > The only reason I write here is to clarify the nature of > my experience. This was also a big help, including the > attacks. Learning to navigate opposition when experiencing > basically non-opposition is a very peculiar exercise. > Someone can say something that can polish up clarity on > a point, but that point is not quintessentially a > function of intellect. An argument that will be lost on many here. The *most* common description of long-term TMers one encounters out in the larger spiritual marketplace is "Stuck in their heads." They've been given SO many maps that they have lost touch with the fact that at best they were crude representations of a territory, and in most cases one they've never walked. > Bear in mind that when dealing with enlightenment, one > is ultimately not dealing with rational discourse, but > dealing with a quality of life that underlies, so to > speak, everything else in experience, one attempts to > align with that, but one is not always able to apply > the intellect to a situation because intellect is a > subset of experience, kind of in its own little > compartment; it handles attempting to organise verbal > representations a wider world of experience, but is > not that experience, it's a filter for that experience, > which means something is cut out or blocked when it is use. Yup. What has often fascinated me is the number of supposed seekers who use "intellectual understanding" to *block* the very experience they're seeking. As far as I can tell, the more strongly people believe that they know what enlightenment is, the less likely they are to ever experience it. > If you fail to align with the wider experience, you try > again, and again. You are not polishing your intellect - > it might improve, or even get worse. You are polishing > something you cannot even see, kind of like a seagull > riding the currents of the air, learning to gracefully > move on a bedrock of mystery. I would characterize what you are describing more in terms of "neti neti" -- "trying on" different theories and then discarding them, one after another. > Waking up, or waking down, whichever way it goes does > not matter because waking is the common element, is > not a green card to nirvana. It is like your life is > a building that has just been totally demolished, and > you now have to build it anew, with a new understanding > which simply cannot have the gravity the previous one > did because you know it is not really true, but has > a practical value only. The things thought about, as > thought, is kind of like a comic book version of the > wider perspective, of which one can not really say > anything. "Those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't know" - Lao Tzu > If lucky, I suppose, much of the demolition happens in > the background during all the years of meditating and > search, so waking up from the dream might be gentle. If > not, you might think you have gone insane, and you > really do need some guidance. I have heard people say > they thought something was seriously wrong when the > awakening happened, because the nature of the experience, > however well prepared, was so unlike what they expected. Exactly the problem with traditions that load their teachings with lots of dogma. > But if the experience is clear enough, you can't go back. > You are stuck in the ocean without an oar; you are the > ocean in a specific sense which really cannot be described, > so an oar would do no good in any case. To all the people > in my life that made this possible, a heartfelt Thank You. Or at the very least, a Douglas Adams-like "So long, and thanks for all the fish." :-)
