Comment below: **
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > **snip** > > 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. > **end** Excellent points, Curtis, (gee, and from a non-spiritual primatologist at that). Just a few comments from my end, however. The fact that you have had experiences of "my Self being the essence of the universe and that I am immortal and unbounded" and then to turn around and discount those experiences as having been merely isolated 'subjective experiences' that have no greater validity than any other experience is an interesting conundrum. Because, using the metric of advaita (or Kashmiri Saivism, for another example), all experience is just consciousness in play. Appearance of difference. So all experience, whether exalted or mundane, spiritual or otherwise, is merely consciousness of the apparent movement within oneSelf. (Maharishi's example of sitting motionless in a hot tub and not feeling the hot water until you start to move about.) But your experiences of unboundedness, etc., I would argue are exactly what they appear to be and the validity of that can't be denied. Similarly to the experience of the color 'red' in a dream; no one but you is privy to that experience, but the recognition of what 'red' is, the knowledge of 'red' you experience is inarguably true. You know 'red' and within that dream you recognize that knowledge. It is what it is, and you 'know' that. The absolute fullness and peace and certitude of what you have experienced (through meditation or other practices or drugs or just spontaneously without an apparent catalyst) is real and true because you recognize it as such. Doesn't matter that it was seemingly encapsulated within a certain time and that other, more discrete experiences have followed it later in time. One way I've theorised about how the 'knowledge traditions' have come to be is that as humanity began to break away from its pure animal existence and began to understand itself as separate from the world (ego), separate from existence itself, some of those not-quite- monkeys realized that it was important not to entirely lose that non- ego state. Separateness is an interesting excursion but doesn't provide a whole lot of longterm satisfaction. These wiser(?) proto- humans recognizing, if nothing more than that the 'feel good' experience of bliss that this simpler (simplest?) state of awareness provided, began traditions and practices to retain it, or to retrain those who had lost access to it. Over time those traditions became more and more esoteric and practitioners were tiny fractions of the population as a whole, and marginal to one degree or another. India seems to have been a location where a lot of folks seemed to have been interested in these practices and have continually been working and developing them for a long time. More so than other places it seems. Of more or less contemporary teachers (in my experience), Nisargadatta and Tolle seem to be most comfortable speaking about this stuff 'outside' of a tradition context. Very down to earth and real. Nisargadatta I can't praise enough. He's like a massive bong hit. >From the standpoint of the world, I agree with you that the experience of unboundedness, bliss, immortality, etc., that characterize these states can be categorized as just more experience that have no greater validity than others. The whole 'chop wood, carry water' thing. But from its own platform, the recognition of that underlying Awareness that is separate from all things but encompasses all things because without It no thing can be and That is who you Are, is just so absolutely compelling that it just doesn't allow for anything but It. It's like gravity. We are -- all things are -- under Its constant influence and It calls all back to ItSelf. Good stuff. Thanks. And thanks to Barry for fomenting the discussion. Marek
