> > > > > 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. > > > > > > Just to add, I'm not suggesting one should strictly > > > limit oneself to a standardized vocabulary. It's > > > something to start from, to use as a basis, then > > > elaborate on, depart from, whatever, as appropriate. > > > It can even be used negatively--e.g., "It *wasn't* > > > like this. Instead, it was like..." > > > > But what's the *point* of all this "communication?" > > You're the guy who's always calling for people to > discuss their experiences. You tell me.
I'm interested in hearing from people who have *had* experiences. I have almost no interest in hearing from those who've only read about them or heard about them. :-) > > Seems to me that often it's people who have not had > > a particular experience trying to "understand" the > > experience, on the basis of hearing it described or > > theorized about. > > Is that why you keep insisting on hearing about > other people's experiences? Do you repeat yourself in other contexts this often? :-) > With many spiritual experiences, > > I've found that the people who *had* the experiences > > don't understand them. Many of them are honest enough > > to say so. > > What's the point of describing an experience, then, > if there's no understanding behind it? Just for fun, to throw words out, see if they work this time, and when realizing that they don't, to laugh at oneself? :-) > > I guess the bottom line from this point of view, is > > that I'm just more of a fan of having experiences > > than sitting around talking about someone else's > > experiences. > > So again, why do you put such importance on > folks describing their experiences? The "importance" you attach to my interest is, like many things you write about, all in your mind. :-) > You even > claim that people who don't must not have had > any. Usually when they're on record previously as stating for the record that they haven't. Such as yourself in several cases. :-) > You've also asserted that the TMO discourages > talking about experiences (although that isn't > the case, at least since I learned TM) in order > to cover up the fact that TMers aren't having > any experience. I still think that's true. You can believe whatever you want. As if you wou wouldn't anyway. :-) > > That can be fun if one finds the > > discussion or the experiene being discussed > > interesting, but I'm not convinced that hearing > > about it is going to either really help you > > understand it or prepare you for the experience > > itself. > > No, as I suggested in the post you're responding > to, such descriptions are most useful in the other > direction, i.e., after one has had an experience. > At any rate, that's been the case for me. (I > believe that's what Michael was saying as well.) > > > *On the other hand*, from another point of view, > > there may be some value in hearing the vibe "behind" > > the words that a person uses to describe an exper- > > ience that they know is indescribable. The words > > themselves mean nothing, but perhaps the vibe > > behind the words can provide a "pointer" to an > > intuitive feeling about the actual experience, > > a finger pointing to the moon. > > > > Given the second point of view, I would say that > > there is a greater likelihood of profiting from a > > discussion of a spiritual experience with someone > > who has actually had the experience than from a > > discussion among people who haven't. > > Uh, right. I don't think anybody was suggesting > otherwise. > > In the former > > case, the "vibe" might slip through underneath the > > words; in the latter case, there is no "vibe" to > > slip anywhere, only theory. > > I kind of doubt there's much of a "vibe" in an > electronic posting, although there may be in a > "live" setting. I disagree. You can either feel it or you can't. Several people here are on record as saying they can. If you can't, that's your problem, not theirs. ------------------------ 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/
