--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim: There also appear to be two exceptions to this 'listing' behavior, > > and those are the postings of Curtis and new morning. However upon > > closer examination, both of their postings weren't really listing > > criteria for non-dual Self realization, but rather desirable > > attributes of being, so more a psychological perspective than one > > dealing head on with the state of consciousness. > > Me: To address consciousness more head on, I believe that people can > alter the way their minds functions radically through meditation. It > happened to me so I don't have any reason to doubt someone's claim > that they have reached a state of consciousness that is very different > from what it was before. Where I differ is that I don't share the > assumption that this new state gives one a deeper insight into > "reality", even though it may feel as though this is the case. > > In MMY's system he always loads the beliefs about the experiences as > he is inducing them. I have had experiences that I could express as > my Self being the essence of the universe and that I am immortal and > unbounded. But now that I don't think this is the actually the case, I > relate to my experiences as interesting and compelling, but don't > believe that it was an experience of a deeper reality. > > So if a person presents themselves as "enlightened", I just figure > they are having a compelling subjective experience, and don't think > much about it unless they attempt to use this claim as a leverage > point to act superior to me. That is the same criteria for sorting > out bores in any other area of my life. I don't assume that people > who have developed these states have any better insight into what is > going on here on earth than I do. I only choose to interact with > people who have the humility to recognize our shared human condition. > > MMY doesn't teach that the experiences of growing enlightenment are > self-evident enough to be complete without adding the beliefs found in > Vedic scriptures. He is using an ancient interpretation of what these > states mean. I think they can be understood today in a more value > free way. Just as earlier societies believed that one's dreams were a > journey in to the land of the dead, but today that is not a common > view, I think we will learn to view these states of consciousness > differently as they are studied more. >
Curtis: "Where I differ is that I don't share the assumption that this new state gives one a deeper insight into "reality", even though it may feel as though this is the case." You may have missed my alteration of the 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre' quote, where I essentially said the same thing. If it ain't based on direct experience, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't exist. Can the direct experience of absolutely everything and anything be adequately described, so that anyone not familiar with the experience will know unambiguously what is being described? Nope. Curtis: [Regarding other states of consciousness] "I think they can be understood today in a more value free way." Who is ascribing values to these states of consciousness? Certainly not me. There is a big difference in stating, for example, "Mr. X has tunneled through the earth farther than most have done", and "Mr. X has tunneled through the earth farther than most have done, and is therefore better than the rest of us". In both cases, value-free and value-judgment, there remains an indisputable fact, that Mr. X did tunnel through the earth farther than most have done. Period. No value judgment, yet the fact is there.
