--- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Best metaphor of the year so far, hands-down. > 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. It has been a cool thread so far, hasn't it? Thanks to you for getting it, and for taking it to a whole new level. What you just did is what conversation is all about to me. Those magic conversations over coffee or wine or whatever in the weirdest places you could imagine, all unlike except that all of them are alike. You start the conversation as one person, one self, and end the conversation as another. Isn't that so much cooler than arguing to preserve the self and the point of view it entered the conversation with?
