In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory.
In order to perform the clever trick of us thinking there is a theatre in our heads where all this stuff is united as a convincing picture is a bit of a clever trick. But we never see X-rays or hear ultrasonic so in what way could it be another world? There's no extra meaningful knowledge to be gained from our senses at all. I think what we have is a breakdown in explaining mystical states, they don't mean anything really, they don't teach you anything you don't already know, you just get a feeling that they might if they become fully realised. For all his bluster Marshy never told us what the cosmological constant was or how the alleged unified field fits in with the standard model of particle physics. There was nothing new other than the promise that we could have these riches too. In fact, he only ever impressed me a few times with his day-to-day wisdom. His supreme wisdom is just rehashed Hindooism, hardly cognised as claimed, if it ever was. But his description of enlightenment is inspiring as that's how it feels to experience it, but there is no layered structure to consciousness like you see on TM posters or inside the brain. It's all a metaphor, a clever way of explaining how a breakdown (or up) of our usual deceptive model of how the world looks when you jigger about with it. Why you get the duality of the silent and the active at the same time seems rather likely to be due to Lawson's hypothalamus feedback idea, that gives us the fourth state of consciousness - characterised by stillness, becoming temporarily crosswired to the normal waking state apparatus of manufacturing consciousness. If that is indeed how transcendence is explained, and it will be something like that. There isn't anywhere else for another world to be as far as anyone knows, or anyway we could get information about it, as far as anyone knows. Wouldn't it be funny if TM researchers undermined the whole philosophical fabric of their own beliefs. That's be true science! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Maybe there's only one world and you usually see only part of it? Ah, I still get that stunned feeling that hits you in your gut and that sense of wonder about just...how? How there can be two worlds when I only usually see one...?