--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > Anyway, I learned in 1975, apparently after it had > > begun to happen. You started TM when? > > Not that it matters very much, but 1967. > TTC was '72.
Nope, doesn't matter much. Just means that "a decade of indoctrination" is about twice as long as that period actually was. It also seems *very* odd to me that nobody was having witnessing experiences prior to 1972; they were quite common by 1975 when I learned TM. It's one thing to constantly scrutinize one's experiences to see whether they conform to the descriptions. It's quite another to just set the descriptions to one side, and then when one *has* an experience, haul the descriptions out and see if any of them conform to the experiences. The thing is, the descriptions are linear, and the experiences aren't. *But* once you've had an experience, you may be able to see that a particular description is a linear version of that experience. > > > > I've always understood "CC experiences" to mean > > > > witnessing experiences. > > > > > > I don't like the term witnessing, so I won't > > > comment. I think it's a very loose and misleading > > > term for a much broader experience. > > > > It's shorthand, of course, for a much broader > > experience. There are a number of different, > > more detailed descriptions as well. > > The map is not the territory. The descriptions > are not the experience. Yes, I think everybody understands the distinction. > Not even close. I honestly > think that one of the problems some people in > the TM movement create for themselves is that > they attempt to fit their round peg experiences > into the square hole of the descriptions that > have been given to them. Could be. The alternative would be what, never to talk about experiences at all? I think there's something of a tradeoff involved. The descriptions are very useful in some ways but can become limiting. It's one thing to constantly scrutinize one's experiences to see whether they conform to the descriptions. It's quite another to just set the descriptions to one side, and then when one *has* an experience, haul the descriptions out and see if any of them conforms to the experience. The thing is, the descriptions are linear, and the experiences aren't. *But* once you've had an experience, you may be able to see that a particular description is a linear version of that experience. Big mistake. The exper- > iences are what they are, not what people would > like them to be to feel that they are "official" > experiences. It's not a matter of whether they're "official." Novel experiences can be disorienting, even scary, and that can get in the way of one's progress. > Isn't that, after all, AnonAkashaGabbyMoose's > issue? He wants the experiences of enlighten- > ment that people have had to fit into the > descriptions of them he has heard over the > years. He's so used to the map that he wants > people's experiences to have creases in them > in the same places his maps do. :-) No, I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Unless you believe experiences should never be discussed, you have to find ways to describe them; and a standardized vocabulary for such descriptions, to the extent possible, facilitates understanding and comparison. Otherwise not much communication takes place. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
