Me: I'm glad you weighed in, I enjoyed your post. I don't mean to discount the experiences of alternate states of consciousness as profound or even useful. I just have a different view of what they mean. Marek: 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.
Me: I think this contains a lot of layers of beliefs about the experiences that I don't share. And you certainly might be right about the assumptions here. But they still are assumptions about the experience's value. Having spent part of my youth experimenting with altered states, I know that we can experience all sorts of stuff that is not an insight into what is real, although at the time the experiences can be just as compelling as meditation induced states. I think that our amazing brains have all sorts of ways of functioning that should be explored and understood better. I just don't think that the old interpretation of what it all means, by mostly religious minded people, is the only way to look at it. One funny thing about these states that I discovered is that they are intimately tied to the belief system that gives them value. I say this because after I dropped my beliefs about the value of the states I never desired them again. I might use a transcending like state to plan, but I have no desire to sit in a content-free state of unboundedness now. ( I know that this is not how people meditate but from years of rounding it is where I ended up) I think the peak experiences I had when I had altered my consciousness the most during years of rounding as the least charming of my awareness options now. Of course I recognize that this is just my take on it all, I don't deny its value in other people's lives. But I don't view that functioning of my awareness as my true Self. It is what would be termed my relative self that I am proud of and identify with now. That there is a silent witness behind our mind's activity just doesn't mean anything to me. This was a great topic and I would like to hear more people's take on it all. I will check out Nisargadatta, thanks. I am slightly familiar with Tolle. --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment below: > > ** > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> 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 >
