Turq, Excellent post, thanks for taking the time for a long one. I agree with you that the experiences you are describing are not explained by hypnosis, self-hypnosis or otherwise. You are right that my reference experiences for all things spiritual is MMY with a brief dabbling in New Age stuff at the end of my run. I had powerful darshon experiences with MMY and experiences where it all seemed to dry up and I was in the presence of an angry little man who radiated unpleasantness.
I don't know how we can link any causal connection from the events you described. I shift states a lot in my life so it would be hard for me to pin down what had caused what. But you have spent time with a wide range of interesting teachers, as have some others on this group. I really enjoy hearing about experiences that are challenging to my world view. Since my view was hard earned, I don't shrug it off just because someone has a fascinating experience that I can't explain. I know my limits of understanding what is happening in life. There is all sorts of stuff I don't understand. I just do my best and then pick up my guitar. What I meant by not intending to minimize higher states by calling them trance states is that for me trance states are powerful states of mind that can produce amazing experiences. I don't believe that they have been explored enough to know the limits. I hold them in high regard and consider them valuable. They may be different ways of explaining the same thing as found in meditation states. I don't know. I get that you aren't trying to sell me on your point of view. Your post does remind me that there is lots of interesting stuff going on in this world. --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Hey Turq, > > > > I re-read your post about darshon with Gangaji to make sure > > I hadn't missed something. I think your view of darshon is > > pretty close to how I thought of it when I was involved in TM. > > I don't really see what you wrote as a new way of looking at > > it. I think many TM people who share the view that you are > > awakening to your own nature and the presence of the teacher > > is just an exposure to someone who knows themselves in > > that way. > > > > Once you have the assumption in place that you are in the > > presence of a person who is using more of their mind then > > you are, or in a more awakened state, you have one of the > > most powerful influences on suggestibility in place, authority. > > With all due respect, I think you've missed the point. > "Authority" has nothing whatsoever to do with what I > am discussing. What the teacher in question *says* has > nothing whatsoever to do with what I am discussing. I > am discussing the subjective experience of shifting > states of awareness, which can be present whether or > not one *knows* that one is in the presence of a teacher, > whether or not the teacher speaks a work, and whether or > not one expects it. > > > This effect is well known in therapy where the recognition > > of the authority of the therapist is a factor. > > But you're still talking about WORDS, dude. I'm not. > The phenomena I am discussing would happen whether or > not the teacher in question remained silent the entire > time, and whether or not you acknowledged the person > as any kind of "authority." It happens merely as a > result of being in close proximity. > > > In my view it is not just the teacher doing something to > > you, like hypnotizing you.. Ericksonian hypnosis invites > > you to alter the way you converse with yourself internally. > > The client enters into deeper levels of trance through > > their own power, not from the hypnotist's power. The > > hypnotherapist is a facilitator of the person accessing > > their own depth of trance state necessary to accomplish > > the goal of the session. > > What if the "session" has no goal? What if you happened > to meet someone in a bar, had a conversation with them, > with nothing spiritual ever being discussed, and left, > only to find that your state of attention had changed > radically and that now you were capable of psychic > powers that you weren't before, psychic powers that > were never discussed? Where is the "suggestion" in > such an interaction? What was the "goal" of such an > interaction? What was its "method," if hypnosis was > involved? What you saw was what you got -- two guys > having tea in a hotel bar, discussing the weather > and other such stuff. And yet, the shift of attention > took place anyway. > > > If you had a room full of people who did not have the > > intention to play ball you would get superficial results. > > We must agree to disagree. I have been in the situation > I describe above, and many others in which there was no > hint of suggestion of any kind. Your model simply does > not work for me because it does not cover a great number > of the interactions I have had with interesting beings > and the effect those interactions had on my state of > attention. But mine does. So I'm gonna stick with my > "recognition" model, and I wish you well with your > "hypnosis" model. > > > Take a room full of the press in the room with MMY. > > Bad example. I neither consider Maharishi enlightened nor > capable of shifting people's attention. > > > I don't think any of the skeptics in the room come away > > with a profound sense that they were in the room with a > > great saint or even a powerful man. > > I would agree, but this doesn't have anything to do with > them being skeptics. Maharishi just isn't that powerful > or enlightened, dude. :-) In my opinion and in my sub- > jective experience, of course. > > > But people with a different mindset to have profound > > experiences. > > Indeed, many people "mood make" such experiences with him, > but I don't file such experiences in the same category as > the phenomenon I am speaking about. I don't feel that > Maharishi is capable either of "hypnotising" an audience > or of having a profound effect on them *other* than via > moodmaking. > > > Your explanation proposes a mechanics via the concept of > > the aura to describe it. > > That's the idea, yes. > > > I would view it as a predictable result of the language > > pattern used, coupled by the subject's willingness to go > > along with the process, and a long habit of accessing > > deep trance states. > > And how do you explain the phenomenon I am speaking about > happening to me many times when the teacher in question > never said a word? I walked in, sat in a completely quiet > room with someone I'd never met before for a couple of > hours, and walked out in a radically different state of > attention. I did not *expect* this to happen; in fact I > was expecting *nothing* to happen. But it did. My theory > covers such an eventuality, whereas I don't think yours > does. > > > I don't mean this to minimize the experience as "just > > a trance". > > Yes you do, but that's Ok. :-) > > > I am just using the language of one system in the context > > of the other. > > Switching sides I might phrase it that in the presence of > > MMY, a person becomes aware of their own inner unbounded > > Self and finds it easy to access their own pure consciousness > > and their true nature. > > I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation about > this because I *never* have experienced the phenomenon I > am speaking about with Maharishi. And you don't seem to > have ever interacted with the type of folks I am speaking > about. So we're pretty much stuck talking apples and oranges. > > I can see you making a case for hypnosis in situations > where either the teacher actually says something, or in > which the student has been set up to expect something, > and thus mood-makes it into existence. But neither of > those criteria were present in many of the interactions > I've had in my life in which my state of attention shifted > through nothing more than proximity to an interesting > person. > > > But in the system of hypnosis the assumptions contained in > > that phrase are dropped. > > Whatever. As I've said, what I am talking about never > happened to me with Maharishi, so I am not in any position > to comment on whether it ever could. I seriously doubt > that it could, but I'll never again be in a room with > him and neither will anyone here, so it's impossible to > say for sure. > > > I think that both the traditional view of what is going on, > > and the information from hypnotherapists is useful in > > understanding such phenomenon. > > Whatever floats your boat. I'm not trying to sell you > my theory, merely to present it as an option, one that > explains more things than your theory does, or that the > "darshan"/"the teacher 'does' something" theory does. > It's purely informational, and if it doesn't strike a > resonance with you, useless to you. > > > There too worlds have been held apart by suspicions on > > both sides of the fence. It is also a result of people > > having superficial experiences with meditation or the > > deeper states of hypnosis. But when you have deep > > experiences of both, the overlap becomes much more > > obvious. > > If you're looking for it. :-) > > > These are unusual (for most people) mental states when > > they are experienced profoundly, and I think there is a > > lot to be learned by combining data. The fact that the > > formal language structure used in hypnosis, is also used > > by many spiritual teachers has important implications. > > Perhaps. But please bear in mind that the phenomenon I > am discussing can take place without a word being spoken, > and without the person whose state of attention shifts > even being aware that the person they are sitting with > is a teacher of any kind. I've seen this happen in > airports, with someone who just happened to sit in a > seat in the waiting room next to such an individual. > Are you suggesting that the teacher in this case some- > how hypnotised the commuter sitting next to him without > saying a word or even looking at him, enough to cause > a shift of attention so profound that the commuter > started talking about it with his wife? > > Basically, I don't think there's much more to be > discussed between the two of us on this. I don't > personally believe that the "hypnosis" model of > shifting states of attention covers all the bases > I have seen and experienced in my life, whereas > the "recognition" model does. But I'm not selling > it; I just mentioned it to the Gangaji guy because > I thought it might help him find a way of dealing > with his experience with her that doesn't give *her* > all the power in the situation. > > That, unfortunately, is what your "hypnosis" model > does. Whether the teacher is blasting you with woo- > woo rays (the "darshan" theory), or lulling you into > a shifted state of attention via speech phrasing > (the "hypnosis" theory), you're still casting yourself > as the "victim" of someone *doing* something to you. > I like my "recognition" theory because it doesn't > involve the teacher doing diddleysquat, yet one's > state of attention shifts *anyway*. > > Different strokes for different folks, that's all... > 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
