On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:14 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> > > ha-ha - caffeined. > > I agree that the 'levels' thing can be really confusing, but I do like > that it shows first the lighting inside, spreading to the outside, then > illuminating everything, with perception changing appropriately along the > way, aka TC evolving to CC, evolving to UC. However I see your point for > keeping it simple - Either way, the same process occurs. > > *The most simple point is that there is only ONE reality, not two or a myriad of individual pure consciousness - each one for a different person. There is only one single pure consciousness shared by all. It just looks divided up into levels due to maya.* > > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : > > Looks like about a 5 shot Americano rap. Tried a Starbuck's Clover yet? ;-) > > > As you know I would agree with you that ranking spiritual experiences is > bogus. As I said the other day (as well as many other times) Maharishi > kinda confused folks with levels of enlightenment. In many simpler Indian > traditions you are either experiencing enlightenment or not. And as Earl > Kaplan pointed out in that letter of his he learned what I did visiting > India: enlightenment is not that uncommon. > > On 09/17/2014 10:13 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: > > > > I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I > loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by > disagreeing with it. > > Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people > who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what > they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in > spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's > ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. > > He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness > meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had > about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it > relates to my previous experience with TM. > > > Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the > same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less > unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I > am not in a position to judge which is "better" or even what that concept > would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out > someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader > conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is > nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) > > > I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system > baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or > intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same > goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should > admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by > assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to > be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To > stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are > based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People > who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem > like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so > wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will > give you props for that. > > The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self > is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of > self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still > falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young > and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding > for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought > provoking. > > Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions > about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I > like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less > enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone > through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass > of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It > is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating > more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under > such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a > way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. > Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut > it for me. That has the epistemological solidity of Dungeons and Dragons > role play games. Sam's description of being caught up in and identified > with thoughts as "suffering" and experiencing the illusion of the self as > "freedom" seems unwarranted to me. It reminds me of Maharishi's > condescending letter to the "peaceless and suffering humanity" in its > presumptions. They both should just speak for themselves to those of us who > do not share their perspective. They are trying to impose a problem on me > that I do not have. > > I agree with Sam that the silent aspect of my consciousness is not a > "Self' in the way Maharishi claimed. I found this satisfying because when I > tried TM again after 18 years without the belief system I was struck with > how bogus this claim seemed to me. I am not sure it is realizing the > illusion of self either as Sam claims. It just seems to be a thing we can > do with our minds that is satisfying for its own sake and seems to feel > like a good place to flow from afterward. > > > Speaking of flow , this concept of flow states in activity holds much more > appeal for me than static meditation. I believe we reach the goal of > meditation states through many means that force us to act more directly > from our more full capacity of our unconscious processes, like performing > music or some other art and engaging in intense athletics. > > > I appreciate that Sam acknowledges that we have no evidence for anyone > living in a permanent state of perfect anything. I am not so sure this is a > bad thing. Sam presupposes that being caught up in thought is a bad thing > and is suffering. I disagree. I appreciate all the various states of my > functioning and don't have any goal to be permanent state of a particular > style of functioning, no matter how pleasurable. It is all part of being > human and I think permanent bliss would be another version of hell. The > ebb and flow of my ability to act from my highest capacity is part of the > dance of being alive. I don't need to stack that deck more than I do > already. > > > I am more interested in finding inner capacity from being put in > challenging situations that force me to dig deeper beneath my natural lazy > comfort/pleasure seeking MO and rise to the occasion. Sometimes that > process sucks and is painful, but I can't deny that it sometimes is how I > get to my best stuff inside. This is the premise of a great book on flow > states I read recently that concludes that we often need an external push > to get to our full capacities, not by closing our eyes. > > Sam's book reinforced to me that I am really more interested in what he > calls person hood and Maharishi calls our relative self than I am of any > altered state, especially the silent aspect of my consciousness. It is far > from the goal of my life to live more silent awareness in my activity. I > have all I need to chase my creative endeavors and it is in those that my > life has its highest meaning as I define and choose it for myself. > > > Spirituality is like an old girlfriend to me. I have fond memories and > don't regret that we gave it the shot we did. ( And I won't be so petty as > to mention all my missing CDs when she packed up and left with her things.) > But we broke up for good reasons. And we are better off without each other. > I can even wish the next person who wants to take on the project of dating > her the best. I enjoyed a sweet nostalgia buzz when I read about Sam's 18 > hour a day meditation retreats. > > > But in the end I am really glad it isn't me! > > > > Here is an interesting perspective from one of the Amazon reviews: > > > > 1. Saying that the self is an illusion because it dissolves upon scrutiny > is like saying that a chair is an illusion because when we look closely it > is composed of atoms. This seems to be a weak claim. How do we know the > self isn't just a larger scale of consciousness that gives way to a more > reduced version of subjective analysis? For that matter, how do we know > that self-transcendence isn't merely a perversion of consciousness that > arises as a result of neurological tinkering & is in fact the illusion in > the scenario? We can produce various "realities" willfully with the power > of mind, as Sam demonstrated with his giant diamond-tomato exercise, what's > to say this isn't one of them? > 2. Is there any way of establishing that the cognitive and > neurophysiological benefits that are assumed to come from meditation are > not simply a false correlation and actually come from other behaviors > common to a contemplative lifestyle? > 3. Is it possible that through meditation what one is actually doing is > conditioning oneself to believe that the effects are real and then simply > reaping the effects of an extravagantly pleasurable and useful placebo-like > product of mind like prayer states? How much do you want to bet that the > number of people who can see Sam's giant tomato will be eerily similar to > the number of people who report direct experience with self-transcendence > and other meditative states? How much do you want to bet that it will be > the same people who can see the tomato AND also transcend the self?? > 4. There must be some evolutionary purpose for the experience of "self", > otherwise it would have abated by now. Should we be concerned as a species > with the long-term effects of circumventing this cognitive construct en > mass? > 5. Neurologically speaking, banishing the self must equate to a certain > level of unscheduled tinkering with neurotransmitters and receptors, just > because we can modulate the potentials of our conscious experience doesn't > mean that those states are fidelitous to some input from our external, or > physical realities. Saying you can transcend the experience of the self and > saying that the self is an illusion are two separate claims. If I do enough > cocaine, I can transcend the experience of being able to feel my face, it > is just easier to look in a mirror and find my face than it is "the self" > to remind me that it is still there. > > > > >
