[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[whynotnow7]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  Spiritual development, call it what you will, seems directed
  to allowing a person to have a single irrefutable experience
  that settles the matter of the mystery of existence on the
  basis of their own direct experience.
 
 Or to have their experience change permanently. 

Yeah - its great to have an aha! once in awhile, but the most practical value 
is one of permanent, ongoing change. :-)
 
  This seems to have practical value, at least for the curious.
 
 I'm not sure settling the matter of the mystery of
 existence is all there is to it (or even necessarily
 part of it), especially in terms of practical value,
 but close enough for now.

Seems like the only mystery ever solved is that the mystery is never solved.:-)
 
  The story, the mythology, spun around this singularity seems 
  without end. Are we missing something?
 
 When a person has any kind of unusual experience, even just
 an unusual sensory experience, they frequently want to talk
 about it, to share it with others, sometimes on a comparative
 basis if there's a possibility others have had similar
 experiences. Isn't that pretty much a feature of human
 nature? In any case, I'd guess that's how the stories and
 mythologies get started and then expanded and perpetuated.

Exactly.:-) 
 
 What do you think we're missing?
 
  Speaking of material facts, the Japan earthquake moved the
  main island about 2.4 metres, or about 8 feet, and shortened
  the length of Earth's day by 1.8 microseconds (we're spinning
  a bit faster now - is this somehow related to discussions on
  this forum?).

I heard that too - I can't imagine the entire island of Japan shifting eight 
feet. That, and the immensity of this catastrophe is incomprehensible.
 
 Heh. That's all we need here, faster spinning!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Vaj]

On Mar 12, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:

 There are experiences, but do all experiences reside in thinking (that is 
 conceptual thinking, naming things etc.)? Conceptual thinking creates an 
 analogue of non-verbal, direct experience, a description that seems to have 
 some relationship with the experience. Most people assume that that 
 description is what we experience, rather than being an adjunct that is 
 tacked on to experience. Experience becomes second hand so to speak to the 
 idea about it. This is difficult to unmuddle because thoughts are experiences 
 too, and this realisation does not come about until we at least experience 
 awareness as distinct from mental thinking activity.  Once that occurs, that 
 separation (between awareness and what we can call everything else) is now 
 the characteristic of experience, but to say that awareness in this case is 
 'transcendental' would seem to not apply because it is just there, it is not 
 somewhere else, it is what one is. It is only transcendental if you think it 
 is somewhere else, and you are looking for it. If anything the world seems 
 like it is in the distance. 
 
 

Part of the problem is there are entire swaths of our own mental landscape that 
we're not familiar with. In a mental technique, as awareness of mentation 
expands into other areas, there's always the danger that we'll attach some 
special providence to these thoughts, esp. if they don't appear to even be 
thoughts (they're that different). A message from beyond, from God, the Angel 
Archos X31A, Ascended Masters, Jesus -- instead of just seeing them as part of 
our interdependent continuum. Thus you have new agers who spontaneously begin 
to channel (largely a mental phenomenon) and attach real specialness to their 
own ignorance. Some go on the road with such inner narcissism, write channelled 
books, give workshops and consultations.

So it's good to know about our own continuum, the mental plane, what it's 
characteristics are. Good teachers explain these things to there students so 
they aren't ensnared by their own minds.
 There is experience of the world, and awareness. Unless you are really going 
 the the 'wrong' way spiritually, that state of experience should not last 
 forever either, eventually the two aspects will 'merge', and then how can you 
 say there is a material world and something that is transcendent to it, since 
 they are both the same. Inference of a transcendent can only be made if 
 intellectually you do not actually know what it is directly (in the sense of 
 silent experience rather than thinking experience). Direct experience is not 
 inference; we infer when we start thinking thoughts about experience, and in 
 the state we term 'ignorance' we are lost in those thoughts to the exclusion 
 of everything else that we potentially can experience.
 
 

Not everyone believes or finds helpful the idea of a transcendent. Otherwise 
you can force a false duality onto the way things are. It's always better to 
see things as they are then to create false beliefs of transcendent and 
immanent onto reality. Fabricating reality. Dividing ourselves like that 
just means you'll have to dismantle that duality in order to recognize any 
underlying unity.

Each layer of reality has it's own logic, it's own structure which may or may 
not bear any resemblance to the mental layer or any other. The important thing 
is to experientially be trained in each, so their unique language and territory 
is understood directly, not merely from the POV of the mental world.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:

 Part of the problem is there are entire swaths of our own mental
landscape that we're not familiar with. In a mental technique, as
awareness of mentation expands into other areas, there's always the
danger that we'll attach some special providence to these thoughts, esp.
if they don't appear to even be thoughts (they're that different). A
message from beyond, from God, the Angel Archos X31A, Ascended Masters,
Jesus -- instead of just seeing them as part of our interdependent
continuum. Thus you have new agers who spontaneously begin to channel
(largely a mental phenomenon) and attach real specialness to their own
ignorance. Some go on the road with such inner narcissism, write
channelled books, give workshops and consultations.


Just curious.  Do you find all channeled knowledge as bunk?  Just
asking.  I don't have an ulterior motive.  I have on occassion gotten
value from this venue (reading books) in the past, but haven't gone that
route (or any route for that matter) in some time.  But I have found
some of it insightful.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:
snip
 Just curious.  Do you find all channeled knowledge as bunk?
 Just asking.  I don't have an ulterior motive.  I have on
 occassion gotten value from this venue (reading books) in the
 past, but haven't gone that route (or any route for that matter)
 in some time.  But I have found some of it insightful.

Depends on whether you mean bunk in the sense of the
content or in the sense of the purported source. As far as
the purported source is concerned, if the content really
comes from Ascended Masters or some other source that has
higher knowledge, you'd expect the insights to be novel,
not anything already available from earthly sources. From
everything I've read, channeled knowledge, insightful
though it may be, is just recycled from scriptures and
other existing sources.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote:
 snip
  Just curious.  Do you find all channeled knowledge as bunk?
  Just asking.  I don't have an ulterior motive.  I have on
  occassion gotten value from this venue (reading books) in the
  past, but haven't gone that route (or any route for that matter)
  in some time.  But I have found some of it insightful.
 
 Depends on whether you mean bunk in the sense of the
 content or in the sense of the purported source. As far as
 the purported source is concerned, if the content really
 comes from Ascended Masters or some other source that has
 higher knowledge, you'd expect the insights to be novel,
 not anything already available from earthly sources. From
 everything I've read, channeled knowledge, insightful
 though it may be, is just recycled from scriptures and
 other existing sources.

Someone I once worked with described channeling as
being like Walking through a strange neighborhood you
don't know anything about like Brooklyn or the Bronx, 
having someone you don't know come up to you and give 
you advice about something, and being naive enough to 
do whatever they tell you to do. 

That's pretty much my feeling about it, plus what Vaj
says above. It's hard enough to separate the bullshit 
from the possibly valuable when dealing with living 
teachers. When dealing with Dead Things, even harder.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@
wrote:
 snip
  Just curious. Do you find all channeled knowledge as bunk?
  Just asking. I don't have an ulterior motive. I have on
  occassion gotten value from this venue (reading books) in the
  past, but haven't gone that route (or any route for that matter)
  in some time. But I have found some of it insightful.

 Depends on whether you mean bunk in the sense of the
 content or in the sense of the purported source. As far as
 the purported source is concerned, if the content really
 comes from Ascended Masters or some other source that has
 higher knowledge, you'd expect the insights to be novel,
 not anything already available from earthly sources. From
 everything I've read, channeled knowledge, insightful
 though it may be, is just recycled from scriptures and
 other existing sources.

I'd have to reach back in my memory banks. There was a period when I
gained great benefit from some books by Barbara Hand Clow and Barbara
Marciniak, supposedly inspired or channeled from Pleidian sources.  In
some cases specific insights and technologies were discussed (although
unverifiable as far as I could see).  A couple of examples may be:
development of a 12 strand DNA to be able to move into a higher
dimension of functioning.  Children being born after 1996 having a DNA
code which makes them more resistant to pesticides.  A technology for
evesdropping which is dependant on mental abilities and not technology. 
Also, supposedly tapping into akashic records to clarify some of the
early beginnings of earth.

I mention these so that people who want to lampoon me can have some
ammo. But the real value I got was in discussing some of the changing
patterns one goes through as they become a more spiritual being.  And
because it was supposedly Pleidian in its' source it was told from a
feminine perspective which resonated with me.*  That's best as I can
describe it right now.

*When I say resonated  I am saying that among the Hindu pantheon of
deities it also the feminine I  have had the greatest affinity for, as
in Durga.   I don't thing she would not fit anyone's description of
dainty (-:

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[whynotnow7]

*When I say resonated  I am saying that among the Hindu pantheon of deities 
it also the feminine I  have had the greatest affinity for, as in Durga.   I 
don't think she would not fit anyone's description of dainty (-:

Durga kicks ass! Very cool - yeah, I have been finding it fascinating for 
awhile that within the Hindu pantheon we discover a live resonance with one 
diety over the other. Personally I have found that this affinity changes over 
time, apparently by itself, becoming more inclusive. Unmistakable - my 
bodymind, the radio station - lol. :-) 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@
 wrote:
  snip
   Just curious. Do you find all channeled knowledge as bunk?
   Just asking. I don't have an ulterior motive. I have on
   occassion gotten value from this venue (reading books) in the
   past, but haven't gone that route (or any route for that matter)
   in some time. But I have found some of it insightful.
 
  Depends on whether you mean bunk in the sense of the
  content or in the sense of the purported source. As far as
  the purported source is concerned, if the content really
  comes from Ascended Masters or some other source that has
  higher knowledge, you'd expect the insights to be novel,
  not anything already available from earthly sources. From
  everything I've read, channeled knowledge, insightful
  though it may be, is just recycled from scriptures and
  other existing sources.
 
 I'd have to reach back in my memory banks. There was a period when I
 gained great benefit from some books by Barbara Hand Clow and Barbara
 Marciniak, supposedly inspired or channeled from Pleidian sources.  In
 some cases specific insights and technologies were discussed (although
 unverifiable as far as I could see).  A couple of examples may be:
 development of a 12 strand DNA to be able to move into a higher
 dimension of functioning.  Children being born after 1996 having a DNA
 code which makes them more resistant to pesticides.  A technology for
 evesdropping which is dependant on mental abilities and not technology. 
 Also, supposedly tapping into akashic records to clarify some of the
 early beginnings of earth.
 
 I mention these so that people who want to lampoon me can have some
 ammo. But the real value I got was in discussing some of the changing
 patterns one goes through as they become a more spiritual being.  And
 because it was supposedly Pleidian in its' source it was told from a
 feminine perspective which resonated with me.*  That's best as I can
 describe it right now.
 
 *When I say resonated  I am saying that among the Hindu pantheon of
 deities it also the feminine I  have had the greatest affinity for, as
 in Durga.   I don't thing she would not fit anyone's description of
 dainty (-:

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Vaj]

On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:56 AM, seventhray1 wrote:

 Just curious.  Do you find all channeled knowledge as bunk?  Just asking. 
  I don't have an ulterior motive.  I have on occassion gotten value from this 
 venue (reading books) in the past, but haven't gone that route (or any route 
 for that matter) in some time.  But I have found some of it insightful.

It really depends on the person. 

For a good description of what I'd consider a good channel, read the chapter 
from In Exile From the Land of Snows on the Tibetan govt. in exile's oracle, 
the Drepung Oracle. Unless they're at this level of refinement, and very, very 
few are, I generally would not waste my time. When it's actually a siddhi based 
on love, the oracle shows some truly miraculous signs that cannot be faked. 
Same with adepts like Yogi Karve. These are truly amazing people, beyond limits.

I realize that people writing from the level of discursive thoughts can say 
very helpful, insightful, wise and worthwhile things. That's what a good 
fiction author does. So it's no surprise that just about anyone can do it in a 
light trance or mental tuning of thought-projections.

But really for it to be unbiased, it has to come from beyond the mental, 
trans-mental if you will. Most channels I've found from my study of Ayurveda, 
to have vata derangements and often suffered or died from vata diseases. Not a 
very balanced practice to be involved in, other than as a transitory thing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:
 I realize that people writing from the level of discursive thoughts
can say very helpful, insightful, wise and worthwhile things. That's
what a good fiction author does. So it's no surprise that just about
anyone can do it in a light trance or mental tuning of
thought-projections.


Some of it would seem to fit into this category.  I brought up the
Drepung Oracle, and hope to take a closer look at when I get a chance.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@
 wrote:
  snip
   Just curious. Do you find all channeled knowledge as bunk?
   Just asking. I don't have an ulterior motive. I have on
   occassion gotten value from this venue (reading books) in the
   past, but haven't gone that route (or any route for that matter)
   in some time. But I have found some of it insightful.
 
  Depends on whether you mean bunk in the sense of the
  content or in the sense of the purported source. As far as
  the purported source is concerned, if the content really
  comes from Ascended Masters or some other source that has
  higher knowledge, you'd expect the insights to be novel,
  not anything already available from earthly sources. From
  everything I've read, channeled knowledge, insightful
  though it may be, is just recycled from scriptures and
  other existing sources.
 
 I'd have to reach back in my memory banks. There was a period
 when I gained great benefit from some books by Barbara Hand
 Clow and Barbara Marciniak, supposedly inspired or channeled
 from Pleidian sources.  In some cases specific insights and 
 technologies were discussed (although unverifiable as far as
 I could see).  A couple of examples may be: development of a
 12 strand DNA to be able to move into a higher dimension of 
 functioning.  Children being born after 1996 having a DNA
 code which makes them more resistant to pesticides.  A
 technology for evesdropping which is dependant on mental
 abilities and not technology. Also, supposedly tapping into
 akashic records to clarify some of the early beginnings of
 earth.

Thing is, anybody can make up unverifiable claims like
these, so they don't seem to me like evidence of a
higher source.

 I mention these so that people who want to lampoon me can have
 some ammo. But the real value I got was in discussing some of
 the changing patterns one goes through as they become a more 
 spiritual being.  And because it was supposedly Pleidian in
 its' source it was told from a feminine perspective which
 resonated with me.*

The question is, are these insights you couldn't have
found from non-channeled sources? Descriptions of changing
patterns in the course of spiritual development are,
forgive me, a dime a dozen, as are feminine perspectives
on spirituality.

I'm not suggesting they're not good and valuable insights,
just that, at least as you describe them, they don't sound,
again, like higher knowledge that could be received only
from a source not accessible via normal means.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 The question is, are these insights you couldn't have
 found from non-channeled sources? Descriptions of changing
 patterns in the course of spiritual development are,
 forgive me, a dime a dozen, as are feminine perspectives
 on spirituality.

 I'm not suggesting they're not good and valuable insights,
 just that, at least as you describe them, they don't sound,
 again, like higher knowledge that could be received only
 from a source not accessible via normal means.

You are right on all counts.  They worked for me then.  And I really
haven't revisted them.  It didn't and doesn't matter to me where they
came from.  I found them valuable at that time.  These writers, or
channelers claim they came from off planet sources.  Great.  Bully for
them. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Vaj]

On Mar 13, 2011, at 6:09 PM, seventhray1 wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:
  I realize that people writing from the level of discursive thoughts can say 
  very helpful, insightful, wise and worthwhile things. That's what a good 
  fiction author does. So it's no surprise that just about anyone can do it 
  in a light trance or mental tuning of thought-projections.
 
 Some of it would seem to fit into this category.  I brought up the Drepung 
 Oracle, and hope to take a closer look at when I get a chance.
 
You can read most of the chapter (Wheel of Protection, p. 193) on Amazon for 
free. What I'd do is go to Look Inside, put in the word oracle and look for 
the page in the search.

The interesting thing about these types of channels, if they're faking, they're 
dead man. The helmet will either cut off their air, or snap their necks. The 
monks are experts in untying a slip not kept on the oracles 30 (orig. 100) lb. 
headpiece in case something goes awry. 

Now that's what I call puttin' yo money where yo oracle is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[seventhray1]

Thanks.  Now wouldn't that make a good opening scene for a movie!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:
   You can read most of the chapter (Wheel of Protection, p. 193) on
Amazon for free. What I'd do is go to Look Inside, put in the word
oracle and look for the page in the search.

The interesting thing about these types of channels, if they're faking,
they're dead man. The helmet will either cut off their air, or snap
their necks. The monks are experts in untying a slip not kept on the
oracles 30 (orig. 100) lb. headpiece in case something goes awry.

 Now that's what I call puttin' yo money where yo oracle is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  The question is, are these insights you couldn't have
  found from non-channeled sources? Descriptions of changing
  patterns in the course of spiritual development are,
  forgive me, a dime a dozen, as are feminine perspectives
  on spirituality.
 
  I'm not suggesting they're not good and valuable insights,
  just that, at least as you describe them, they don't sound,
  again, like higher knowledge that could be received only
  from a source not accessible via normal means.
 
 You are right on all counts.  They worked for me then.  And
 I really haven't revisted them.  It didn't and doesn't matter
 to me where they came from.  I found them valuable at that
 time.  These writers, or channelers claim they came from off
 planet sources.  Great.  Bully for them.

And more power to you. Insight's where you find it. The
only way it might matter, it seems to me, would be if one
gave special weight to channeled insights because of the
purported source (which you're not doing), rather than
evaluating them as one would an earthly source.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote [from various posts; hopefully I am not scrambling 
his intent by this selection]:
Part of the problem is there are entire swaths of our own mental landscape that 
we're not familiar with. In a mental technique, as awareness of mentation 
expands into other areas, there's always the danger that we'll attach some 
special providence to these thoughts, esp. if they don't appear to even be 
thoughts

Not everyone believes or finds helpful the idea of a transcendent. Otherwise 
you can force a false duality onto the way things are. It's always better to 
see 
things as they are then to create false beliefs of transcendent and 
immanent 
onto reality. Fabricating reality. Dividing ourselves like that just means 
you'll have to dismantle that duality in order to recognize any underlying 
unity.

Each layer of reality has it's own logic, it's own structure which may or may 
not bear any resemblance to the mental layer or any other. The important thing 
is to experientially be trained in each, so their unique language and 
territory 
is understood directly, not merely from the POV of the mental world.

I find it hard to disagree with this. Attaching special providence to our 
thoughts is a common fault if you will. If reality is a unity, that is really a 
unity, the idea that the unity has layers though, would seem to be a convenient 
fiction, and that one only needs to be 'trained' in that single so-called 
layer, 
and that all thought is just a convenient fiction, useful albeit, but a 
fiction. 
Enlightenment is that simplification to the unity. I do not see the need for 
layers. Logic highlights true relationships between aspects of diversity, and 
with language, with science, this is the only method. With direct experience, 
logic is not necessary, as long as one does not try to express the experience 
in 
language.

...I realize that people writing from the level of discursive thoughts can say 
very helpful, insightful, wise and worthwhile things. That's what a good 
fiction 
author does. So it's no surprise that just about anyone can do it in a light 
trance or mental tuning of thought-projections.

How can one not write from the level of discursive thought? Obviously one can 
have an experience that does not, or at least does not obviously entail 
discursive thought, but to express that experience, discursive thought seems to 
be the only option, and thus one becomes by default, a fiction author.

But really for it to be unbiased, it has to come from beyond the mental, 
trans-mental if you will

How can an expressed value of language not be biased? Even if you have 
something 
you call trans-mental, you have to have a mental experience to express it, in 
which case you are no longer trans-mental, and the other person to which you 
are 
expressing this, you hope, will have the background of experience to read 
between the lines of the fiction, of the distortion of expressing in language, 
and grasp the truth of matter somehow. Have I failed to read between the lines 
here, and missed your point?


authfriend jstein@... wrote [in reference to channelling mentioned by 
seventhray1 steve.sundur@... and others]

Thing is, anybody can make up unverifiable claims like these, so they don't 
seem 
to me like evidence of a higher source.

This is always the basic problem, are some thoughts more special than others? 
All metaphysical claims are unverifiable except to the person who is generating 
the metaphysical scenario in their mind, and these are the ones that are most 
subject to special pleading because they are not directly accessible to 
another. 
Whatever experience one might have, if we describe it as somehow 
transcendental, 
beyond the material, it falls out of the possibility of verification, which 
requires factual, material observation, which more than one person can access. 
'Evidence' is something that passes between what we assume to be two or more 
minds capable of discursive thought. 

If there is just one mind, one experience, one can fantasize all one wants, one 
does not have to put up an argument or provide evidence. One can be crazy unto 
oneself. In discourse one has less freedom to be just plain nuts. There has to 
be some structure, logic, facts, giving shape to expression. Like being in a 
court of law, you just cannot spin a tale, you have to back the tale up with 
something visceral that others can grasp, you cannot stay in the metaphysical. 
How do you tell the difference between a metaphysical seagull and a 
metaphysical 
cow that have no visible or sensory characteristics or properties that more 
than 
one mind can experience? How can you show someone such a difference?


If you are arguing about metaphysical ideas, you have a choice of billions of 
gods, billions of peculiar concepts, Pleiadians, and other fantastical concepts 
because there is no verification possible by demonstration, so you can make up 
anything, and you can buy into what others 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 And more power to you. Insight's where you find it. The
 only way it might matter, it seems to me, would be if one
 gave special weight to channeled insights because of the
 purported source (which you're not doing), rather than
 evaluating them as one would an earthly source.

Right.  Either it feels right, or it doesn't.  Source doesn't really
matter.  Although tonight I was thinking, that I wouldn't care to go
back and re-read those books.  They worked for me then, and I prefer to
leave it at that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... 
wrote:
snip
 Spiritual development, call it what you will, seems directed
 to allowing a person to have a single irrefutable experience
 that settles the matter of the mystery of existence on the
 basis of their own direct experience.

Or to have their experience change permanently. 

 This seems to have practical value, at least for the curious.

I'm not sure settling the matter of the mystery of
existence is all there is to it (or even necessarily
part of it), especially in terms of practical value,
but close enough for now.

 The story, the mythology, spun around this singularity seems 
 without end. Are we missing something?

When a person has any kind of unusual experience, even just
an unusual sensory experience, they frequently want to talk
about it, to share it with others, sometimes on a comparative
basis if there's a possibility others have had similar
experiences. Isn't that pretty much a feature of human
nature? In any case, I'd guess that's how the stories and
mythologies get started and then expanded and perpetuated.

What do you think we're missing?

 Speaking of material facts, the Japan earthquake moved the
 main island about 2.4 metres, or about 8 feet, and shortened
 the length of Earth's day by 1.8 microseconds (we're spinning
 a bit faster now - is this somehow related to discussions on
 this forum?).

Heh. That's all we need here, faster spinning!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[WillyTex]

  But enlightenment is not a thought process, it's not 
  of the mind...It's getting beyond the mind, as 
  experienced by transcending thought, by transcending 
  the mantra...
  
Anartaxius:
 ...experience does contain thoughts regardless of whether 
 one is before or after that event. Enlightenment has to 
 contain everything, but in the beginning, some kind of 
 sorting out process seems to be needed. And perhaps this 
 is where the problem of special vocabulary arises, for 
 example, how does one describe a state of experience to 
 someone who has never experienced that state before?

Only one statement can be made with certainty concerning 
Ultimate Reality: we *assume* that we exist.

It's obvious that our entire existence is based on 
thinking, ergo, consciousness or an experience of awareness 
that we call thinking or reasoning. 

We are aware of change, duration, and flux, but many 
people are not aware of being aware, that is, they assume
that our existence consists solely of gross physical 
objects. 

However, in the Enlightenment Tradition of India, adepts 
*infer* that there is a transcendental reality which lies 
beyond the observed material world. This inference is 
based on the fact that we observe ORDER in nature, and so 
we conclude that order could only arise from an Intelligent 
Agent. 

We infer that *Intelligence* is the Ultimate Reality; that
*Consciousness* is the basis by which we know existence to 
be Real. 

The sages Shakya, Kapila, Patanjali, Badarayana, Shankara, 
Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya all 
agree on this - they were all confirmed Transcendentalists.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

WillyTex willytex@... Wrote:


Only one statement can be made with certainty concerning
Ultimate Reality: we *assume* that we exist.

It's obvious that our entire existence is based on
thinking, ergo, consciousness or an experience of awareness
that we call thinking or reasoning.

We are aware of change, duration, and flux, but many
people are not aware of being aware, that is, they assume
that our existence consists solely of gross physical
objects.

However, in the Enlightenment Tradition of India, adepts
*infer* that there is a transcendental reality which lies
beyond the observed material world. This inference is
based on the fact that we observe ORDER in nature, and so
we conclude that order could only arise from an Intelligent
Agent.

We infer that *Intelligence* is the Ultimate Reality; that
*Consciousness* is the basis by which we know existence to
be Real.

The sages Shakya, Kapila, Patanjali, Badarayana, Shankara,
Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya all

agree on this - they were all confirmed Transcendentalists.
There are experiences, but do all experiences reside in thinking (that is 
conceptual thinking, naming things etc.)? Conceptual thinking creates an 
analogue of non-verbal, direct experience, a description that seems to have 
some 
relationship with the experience. Most people assume that that description is 
what we experience, rather than being an adjunct that is tacked on to 
experience. Experience becomes second hand so to speak to the idea about it. 
This is difficult to unmuddle because thoughts are experiences too, and this 
realisation does not come about until we at least experience awareness as 
distinct from mental thinking activity.  Once that occurs, that separation 
(between awareness and what we can call everything else) is now the 
characteristic of experience, but to say that awareness in this case is 
'transcendental' would seem to not apply because it is just there, it is not 
somewhere else, it is what one is. It is only transcendental if you think it is 
somewhere else, and you are looking for it. If anything the world seems like it 
is in the distance.  


There is experience of the world, and awareness. Unless you are really going 
the 
the 'wrong' way spiritually, that state of experience should not last forever 
either, eventually the two aspects will 'merge', and then how can you say there 
is a material world and something that is transcendent to it, since they are 
both the same. Inference of a transcendent can only be made if intellectually 
you do not actually know what it is directly (in the sense of silent experience 
rather than thinking experience). Direct experience is not inference; we infer 
when we start thinking thoughts about experience, and in the state we term 
'ignorance' we are lost in those thoughts to the exclusion of everything else 
that we potentially can experience.

 As for order in nature, in the way we carve up the world by thought and 
intellect, some of it looks ordered, and some does not. Look at the chaos of 
rubble in photos of the earthquake aftermath in Japan. One cannot logically 
infer the total system from the parts, cannot infer what the totality is like 
from what the parts are like. We try but it always fails. Such arguments are 
useful up to the point of failure, as a guide, but after that point (I 
guess 
I am not in the same company as the transcendentalists.)

By the way there is a new book out called 'American Veda', which traces the 
history of Indian thought in America starting from about the time of Thomas 
Jefferson onward to the present day. I have not read it yet, someone showed it 
to me today; maybe it would interest you, and the rest of this group.


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... 
wrote:

 
 WillyTex willytex@ Wrote:
 
 
 Only one statement can be made with certainty concerning
 Ultimate Reality: we *assume* that we exist.
 
 It's obvious that our entire existence is based on
 thinking, ergo, consciousness or an experience of awareness
 that we call thinking or reasoning.
 
 We are aware of change, duration, and flux, but many
 people are not aware of being aware, that is, they assume
 that our existence consists solely of gross physical
 objects.
 
 However, in the Enlightenment Tradition of India, adepts
 *infer* that there is a transcendental reality which lies
 beyond the observed material world. This inference is
 based on the fact that we observe ORDER in nature, and so
 we conclude that order could only arise from an Intelligent
 Agent.
 
 We infer that *Intelligence* is the Ultimate Reality; that
 *Consciousness* is the basis by which we know existence to
 be Real.
 
 The sages Shakya, Kapila, Patanjali, Badarayana, Shankara,
 Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya all
 
 agree on this - they were all confirmed Transcendentalists.
 There are experiences, but do all experiences reside in thinking (that is 
 conceptual thinking, naming things etc.)? Conceptual thinking creates an 
 analogue of non-verbal, direct experience, a description that seems to have 
 some 
 relationship with the experience. Most people assume that that description is 
 what we experience, rather than being an adjunct that is tacked on to 
 experience. Experience becomes second hand so to speak to the idea about it. 
 This is difficult to unmuddle because thoughts are experiences too, and this 
 realisation does not come about until we at least experience awareness as 
 distinct from mental thinking activity.  Once that occurs, that separation 
 (between awareness and what we can call everything else) is now the 
 characteristic of experience, but to say that awareness in this case is 
 'transcendental' would seem to not apply because it is just there, it is not 
 somewhere else, it is what one is. It is only transcendental if you think it 
 is 
 somewhere else, and you are looking for it. If anything the world seems like 
 it 
 is in the distance.  
 
 
 There is experience of the world, and awareness. Unless you are really going 
 the 
 the 'wrong' way spiritually, that state of experience should not last forever 
 either, eventually the two aspects will 'merge', and then how can you say 
 there 
 is a material world and something that is transcendent to it, since they are 
 both the same. Inference of a transcendent can only be made if intellectually 
 you do not actually know what it is directly (in the sense of silent 
 experience 
 rather than thinking experience). Direct experience is not inference; we 
 infer 
 when we start thinking thoughts about experience, and in the state we term 
 'ignorance' we are lost in those thoughts to the exclusion of everything else 
 that we potentially can experience.
 
  As for order in nature, in the way we carve up the world by thought and 
 intellect, some of it looks ordered, and some does not. Look at the chaos of 
 rubble in photos of the earthquake aftermath in Japan. One cannot logically 
 infer the total system from the parts, cannot infer what the totality is like 
 from what the parts are like. We try but it always fails. Such arguments are 
 useful up to the point of failure, as a guide, but after that point (I 
 guess 
 I am not in the same company as the transcendentalists.)
 
 By the way there is a new book out called 'American Veda', which traces the 
 history of Indian thought in America starting from about the time of Thomas 
 Jefferson onward to the present day. I have not read it yet, someone showed 
 it 
 to me today; maybe it would interest you, and the rest of this group.

What we are as a soul inhabiting a body, is experienced as existence itself...
We exist.
We know we exist, because we experience...
We experience because of awareness.
When we can distiguish the difference between the existence that we are as 
awareness itself, this is experienced as blissful...

We are the witness of all experience, and the witness has to be 'Bigger' than 
any experience which awareness can have..

you are pretending to be a  human in a body, but in reality you are really 
awareness, or presence or Sat Chit Ananda...

When the Chit stops, when the intellect is still, then the bliss arises which 
is beyond mind, intellect and sometimes in time, also ego...

R.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

  
I have a few comments to make to those who responded to my first post to this 
forum before this thread is closed. 

Thank you for responding. Attempting to figure out what is going on here will 
probably take me a bit of time. 

There are obviously persons on the forum who seem to know each other by name, 
although I have not been able to 

correlate them with their email addresses mostly. It has been many years since 
I 
was in Fairfield. 

Even the last time I passed through Fairfield was almost a decade ago, and I 
did 
not interact with any meditators at that time.

'yifuxero' yifux...@yahoo.com wrote:  [responding to] '...is there a 
generic 
way to describe the journey of Enlightenment? '  Yes, How to Attain 
Enlightenment ...by James Swarz at http://www.shiningw orld.com.  Then read 
Back to the Truth, 5000 Years of Advaita by Dennis Waite, http://www.advaita. 
org/uk  Along with the 3 S's of course.
When you go to these websites and see a lot of Sanskrit terms, this hardly 
seems 
generic, except perhaps to someone from India who would be familiar with these 
terms. I suppose a really generic description of 'getting' to enlightenment 
would be a pipe dream. Too many cultural variations and individual variations 
in 
peoples' initial beliefs about reality probably would doom this approach. 
Mahesh 
Yogi seemed to try this, but it became clear that he could not contain his 
cultural roots and other predilections, and this seems to have created an 
organization that is two faced. Most organizations have an inner and outer 
face, 
but the TMO, as you abbreviate it here, has a logically impassable gap between 
its two faces, and I think that causes it all sorts of problems.


'Robert' babajii...@yahoo.com wrote:  More thoughts on the subject would 
provide 
the intellect with more room to play, to attempt to 'pin down' 

what enlightenment 'Is'...But enlightenment is not a thought process, it's not 
of the mind
...It's getting beyond the mind, as experienced by transcending thought, by 
transcending the mantra
...Becoming familiar with just being with 'Being'...
Also, during sutra practice; it's a matter of staying in 'Transcendence' 
...it's a matter of solidifying 'Being' in your experience of 'I'...  ...R.
I would agree that enlightenment is not a thought process, but experience does 
contain thoughts regardless of whether one is before or after that event. 
Enlightenment has to contain everything, but in the beginning, some kind of 
sorting out process seems to be needed. And perhaps this is where the problem 
of 
special vocabulary arises, for example, how does one describe a state of 
experience to someone who has never experienced that state before?


'whynotnow7' whynotn...@yahoo.com wrote:  ...I am not sure there is a way to 
greatly simplify the language and ways we discuss enlightenment. 

Somehow the desire to get there leads both to the diversity of expression 
about the pathless path, 

and the agility to ultimately make one's way through the forest of knowledge 
presented.  I agree we need some conditioning to refine our discrimination 
towards that we are seeking. 

As for putting that coherently so that everyone gets it? I dunno, a fool's 
errand perhaps- 

Seems like if someone is going to get it, nothing stands in their way. 
And given that all of us think and experience so differently, perhaps the 
diversity of expression is a good thing. :-)
That is the feeling I get from everyone's response to my posts.

'Ravi Yogi' raviy...@att.net  There are plenty of intellectuals and 
skeptics 
on list as well, may be your questions are too broad, 

you could may be start off by breaking your questions into smaller pieces? 
Posting an initial post with something that bashes TMO and/or MMY will also 
endear you to 

many and make more respond, just kidding. I didn't mean to or wouldn't dare to 
put an end to any discussion. 

It was just my 3 cents.
I think that is a practical idea. A compromise for forum ADD. As for the TMO, 
Terror Management  Oppression, 

it has some good sides and some dark sides. Organizations have this tendency to 
drift into weirdness 

if they do not pay attention to the context they are in. Same for Mahesh (which 
means dispeller of darkness, I think), 

I once saw a video of him, people clapping in the background and he was just 
chuckling to himself, and I was 

wondering 'what am I seeing here?, is this for good, or for something less 
good?' At the same time,
 I heard an audio someone played for me many many years ago, and Mahesh said 
'transcendental meditation 

is the relationship between master and disciple', and while I never felt any 
strong attachment to any teacher, 

this statement had the effect of freeing me from the grasp of any teacher, and 
made the process self contained.How many people do you know seeking 
enlightenment looking for everything outside of themselves for guidance? 

Sometimes yes, but for everything? Mahesh 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Ravi Yogi]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@...
wrote:

 I agree we need some conditioning to refine our discrimination towards
that we are seeking. As for putting that coherently so that everyone
gets it? I dunno, a fool's errand perhaps- Seems like if someone is
going to get it, nothing stands in their way.

Well stated Jim-ji - because until the thirst arises even spiritual
discussions turn into yet another adornment of the false self. And
someone intent on quenching this thirst will surely find it. I think
how to get to this state of thirst is the most interesting thing, some
people are quite content to mask their thirst by drinking soda the rest
of their life, I believe Purva Punya and God's grace are very important
to create the conditions in which one starts to get discontented with
the soda and starts looking for real water. Intellectual inquiry at this
stage is probably the most fruitful.
 And given that all of us think and experience so differently, perhaps
the diversity of expression is a good thing. :-)

True, we need to find the right path that is in tune with our samskaras
or innate tendencies. A lot of trial and error is needed to find the
right path, Guru's guidance, explicit or implicit is very helpful -
grace seems to be disproportionately high compared to self effort. No
path should be discarded and nothing should be mocked and ridiculed. For
one who is desperate any and everything becomes a chance to introspect
and improve.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius
anartaxius@ wrote:
 
  Ravi Yogi wrote: [In a response to a rather long post about the
supposed 'path'
  of enlightenment, not repeated here]
 
  The important factors in the non-journey journey are:
   * Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened),
Seva
  (service to Guru or God)  and Sadhana (spiritual practices)
   * And the 3 V's - Vairagya  (dispassion to worldly objects), Viveka
  (discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation).
   * Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most
important factor.
 
  This response helps clarify the question or questions I was asking.
There are
  many different traditions of enlightenment, each with their own set
of
  descriptive terms, practices and techniques. Ravi Yogi uses a number
of special
  terms in his response to me, most of which I do not know, and was
kind enough to
  amplify them so I could grasp what they connoted.
 
  Perhaps the question I am proposing is this: is there a completely
generic way
  to describe the journey of enlightenment, without the bamboozling
  characteristics of a special vocabulary, that would appeal to the
widest
  audience? One of the problems I see is most spiritual language seems
to me to
  have strong religious connotations. When people with one religious
orientation
  hear the language of another religious orientation, it tends to be
very
  off-putting. People regularly slay each other on this world in the
name of
  whatever they label as their primary or exclusive overlord (which is
kind of
  generic term for the concept 'god'), and its accompanying
metaphysical
  theological system. However the experience of enlightenment and its
associated
  experiences are found across the board regardless of the spiritual
camp where
  one is parked.
 
  There are other groups, such as scientists which tend to atheism,
and spiritual
  language tends to be rather unpopular with such groups. The concept
of 'god'
  does not compute, even though some scientists use the word in a very
general way
  sometimes. So saying something like 'devotion to God or a teacher'
might not go
  over very well. You would have to find some neutral way to explain
it to them.
  One neuroscientist interested in spiritual phenomena and experiences
wrote:
 
 
  The universality of these phenomena refutes the sectarian claims of
any one
  religion. And, given that contemplatives generally present their
experiences of
  self-transcendence as inseparable from their associated theology,
mythology, and
  metaphysics, it is no surprise that scientists and non-believers
tend to view
  their reports as the product of disordered minds, or as exaggerated
accounts of
  far more common mental states †like scientific awe, aesthetic
enjoyment,
  artistic inspiration, etc.
 
  The scientific community, and philosophers tend to be intellectual.
Ravi Yogi
  wrote at the beginning of his response to me the following:
 
  I would say not to intellectualize or philosophize too much
(sushkatarka - dry
  logic), otherwise you will just end deceiving yourself - a la
Vakrabuddhi or the
  Trickster.
 
  This could certainly apply to my posts, but also,
over-intellectualising doesn't
  seem to work very well with simpler folk, but it is often necessary
with certain
  groups. I realize that on forums the attention span often seems to
be about one
  sentence in duration. One would think that a group that discussed at
length
  recently 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[seventhray1]

Kudos to you Ravi for reading these long articles.  Who said anything
about some kind of ADD for the Ravster?  No sir.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 Nice article.
 I would say not to intellectualize or philosophize too much(sushka
tarka
 - dry logic), otherwise you will just end deceiving yourself - a la
 Vakrabuddhi or the Trickster.
 A thirsty man doesn't start reading books on water, types of water,
the
 manufacturers, suppliers, etc. - he knows he is thirsty and that he
 needs water. People who quench their thirst might react differently,
 some may become silent, some will scream in joy, some might laugh,
some
 shed tears, these expressions don't convey the joy of quenching
thirst,
 they are not the real thing, just the after effects and we shouldn't
 focus on that.
 Some might have quenched their thirst by drinking water from a lake,
 some from a muddy lake, some from a river - this is unnecessary again
 and doesn't convey the joy of quenching the thirst.
 The important factors in the non-journey journey are:
 Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened), Seva
 (service to Guru or God) and Sadhana (spiritual practices)
 And the 3 V's - Vairagya(dispassion to worldly objects),
 Viveka(discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation).
 Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most important
 factor.
 Love - Ravi Yogi

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius
 anartaxius@ wrote:
 
  If enlightenment is the experience of what we essentially are, then
 it cannot
  be somewhere else than where we are, so the term 'transcendence,'
 meaning
  'having gone beyond the current limits,' or something like that,
 cannot mean we
  have gone into some other realm, it just refers to having a more
 complete
  experience wherein we notice aspects of our experience that we had
not
 noticed
  before. It does not refer to an actual journey. Whatever we think we
 are doing
  to have this experience, it is not bringing something new into our
 life, it is
  just making us more attentive to what is there already. It is
 conditioning. To
  learn to play the piano, you have to condition the mind/body a
certain
 way. To
  recognise and name different birds, you have to be able to
 discriminate the
  different kinds, which at first you may not be able to do. You might
 have to
  develop your memory to recognise birds' different coloured plumage
 etc., and
  which colours fit with female or male, or the age of the birds. To
 'transcend,'
  one has to condition the mind/body a certain way so that the
 discriminative
  ability is enhanced. However this is done, one is learning a new
 habit. A
  meditation system establishes a habit that can interfere with other
 habits we
  might have, that is, de-condition those other habits, break them up;
 allows us
  to unlearn those habits to a lesser or greater extent, while
 establishing the
  effect of its own habit. Those other habits, primarily perceptual
and
  understanding based, in this context of spiritual development are
 called
  'ignorance.'
 
 
  Even though it is not an actual journey from somewhere to somewhere
 else, this
  learning/unlearning process can be thought of as a journey, and we
end
 up
  conceptualising what is going on in this process, or borrowing
someone
 else's
  ideas about it. The huge variation in description of this imaginary
 journey
  found in the literature, in groups practising meditation, and other
 spiritually
  oriented techniques, is enough to make one wonder how much of all
this
 could be
  real. There seems to be a kind of fantasy overkill that develops in
 spiritual
  movements over time where peoples' imaginations take over where
 experience ends.
  In a scientific discipline, imagination plays a big role, scientists
 come up
  with all sorts of crazy ideas to try to explain their experiences
and
 data. Most
  of these ideas turn out to not work out because, well, scientists
test
 them and
  argue among themselves and eventually filter out the crap based on
the
 results
  of carefully constructed test situations. For some reason, there
does
 not seem
  to be a very good filtering mechanism in most spiritual circles, so
 the crap
  continues to circulate unabated, and sometimes it seems to develop
an
  astonishing reproductive capacity as well. It often ends up in
pretty
 books with
  gold borders and illuminated letters, although buried in the dazzle
 may be
  useful implementable plans.
 
  Enlightenment is a simple experience, and while the so-called path
to
 it can be
  made subject to a descriptive process, we might consider just how
 complex that
  description needs to be to describe how to get the job done. In the
 Maharishi
  system, there are these benchmark descriptions TC, CC, etc., but it
 might be
  well to reflect on just how discrete these experiences are for any
 particular
  person, considering there are differences in human nervous 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Ravi Yogi wrote: [In a response to a rather long post about the supposed 'path' 
of enlightenment, not repeated here]

The important factors in the non-journey journey are:
* Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened), 
Seva 
(service to Guru or God)and Sadhana (spiritual practices)
* And the 3 V's - Vairagya  (dispassion to worldly objects), Viveka 
(discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation).
* Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most important 
factor.

This response helps clarify the question or questions I was asking. There are 
many different traditions of enlightenment, each with their own set of 
descriptive terms, practices and techniques. Ravi Yogi uses a number of special 
terms in his response to me, most of which I do not know, and was kind enough 
to 
amplify them so I could grasp what they connoted.

Perhaps the question I am proposing is this: is there a completely generic way 
to describe the journey of enlightenment, without the bamboozling 
characteristics of a special vocabulary, that would appeal to the widest 
audience? One of the problems I see is most spiritual language seems to me to 
have strong religious connotations. When people with one religious orientation 
hear the language of another religious orientation, it tends to be very 
off-putting. People regularly slay each other on this world in the name of 
whatever they label as their primary or exclusive overlord (which is kind of 
generic term for the concept 'god'), and its accompanying metaphysical 
theological system. However the experience of enlightenment and its associated 
experiences are found across the board regardless of the spiritual camp where 
one is parked.

There are other groups, such as scientists which tend to atheism, and spiritual 
language tends to be rather unpopular with such groups. The concept of 'god' 
does not compute, even though some scientists use the word in a very general 
way 
sometimes. So saying something like 'devotion to God or a teacher' might not go 
over very well. You would have to find some neutral way to explain it to them. 
One neuroscientist interested in spiritual phenomena and experiences wrote: 


The universality of these phenomena refutes the sectarian claims of any one 
religion. And, given that contemplatives generally present their experiences of 
self-transcendence as inseparable from their associated theology, mythology, 
and 
metaphysics, it is no surprise that scientists and non-believers tend to view 
their reports as the product of disordered minds, or as exaggerated accounts of 
far more common mental states — like scientific awe, aesthetic enjoyment, 
artistic inspiration, etc.

The scientific community, and philosophers tend to be intellectual. Ravi Yogi 
wrote at the beginning of his response to me the following:

I would say not to intellectualize or philosophize too much (sushkatarka - dry 
logic), otherwise you will just end deceiving yourself - a la Vakrabuddhi or 
the 
Trickster.

This could certainly apply to my posts, but also, over-intellectualising 
doesn't 
seem to work very well with simpler folk, but it is often necessary with 
certain 
groups. I realize that on forums the attention span often seems to be about one 
sentence in duration. One would think that a group that discussed at length 
recently no mantra, no thoughts would have a bit more room for a few more 
thoughts.


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[yifuxero]

below: ...is there a generic way to describe the journey of Enlightenment?.

Yes,  How to Attain Enlightenment...by James Swarz at 
http://www.shiningworld.com.
...
Then read Back to the Truth, 5000 Years of Advaita by Dennis Waite,
http://www.advaita.org/uk
...
Along with the 3 S's of course.
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... 
wrote:

 Ravi Yogi wrote: [In a response to a rather long post about the supposed 
 'path' 
 of enlightenment, not repeated here]
 
 The important factors in the non-journey journey are:
   * Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened), 
 Seva 
 (service to Guru or God)  and Sadhana (spiritual practices)
   * And the 3 V's - Vairagya  (dispassion to worldly objects), Viveka 
 (discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation).
   * Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most important 
 factor.
 
 This response helps clarify the question or questions I was asking. There are 
 many different traditions of enlightenment, each with their own set of 
 descriptive terms, practices and techniques. Ravi Yogi uses a number of 
 special 
 terms in his response to me, most of which I do not know, and was kind enough 
 to 
 amplify them so I could grasp what they connoted.
 
 Perhaps the question I am proposing is this: is there a completely generic 
 way 
 to describe the journey of enlightenment, without the bamboozling 
 characteristics of a special vocabulary, that would appeal to the widest 
 audience? One of the problems I see is most spiritual language seems to me to 
 have strong religious connotations. When people with one religious 
 orientation 
 hear the language of another religious orientation, it tends to be very 
 off-putting. People regularly slay each other on this world in the name of 
 whatever they label as their primary or exclusive overlord (which is kind of 
 generic term for the concept 'god'), and its accompanying metaphysical 
 theological system. However the experience of enlightenment and its 
 associated 
 experiences are found across the board regardless of the spiritual camp where 
 one is parked.
 
 There are other groups, such as scientists which tend to atheism, and 
 spiritual 
 language tends to be rather unpopular with such groups. The concept of 'god' 
 does not compute, even though some scientists use the word in a very general 
 way 
 sometimes. So saying something like 'devotion to God or a teacher' might not 
 go 
 over very well. You would have to find some neutral way to explain it to 
 them. 
 One neuroscientist interested in spiritual phenomena and experiences wrote: 
 
 
 The universality of these phenomena refutes the sectarian claims of any one 
 religion. And, given that contemplatives generally present their experiences 
 of 
 self-transcendence as inseparable from their associated theology, mythology, 
 and 
 metaphysics, it is no surprise that scientists and non-believers tend to view 
 their reports as the product of disordered minds, or as exaggerated accounts 
 of 
 far more common mental states †like scientific awe, aesthetic enjoyment, 
 artistic inspiration, etc.
 
 The scientific community, and philosophers tend to be intellectual. Ravi Yogi 
 wrote at the beginning of his response to me the following:
 
 I would say not to intellectualize or philosophize too much (sushkatarka - 
 dry 
 logic), otherwise you will just end deceiving yourself - a la Vakrabuddhi or 
 the 
 Trickster.
 
 This could certainly apply to my posts, but also, over-intellectualising 
 doesn't 
 seem to work very well with simpler folk, but it is often necessary with 
 certain 
 groups. I realize that on forums the attention span often seems to be about 
 one 
 sentence in duration. One would think that a group that discussed at length 
 recently no mantra, no thoughts would have a bit more room for a few more 
 thoughts.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Robert]

 (snip)

   One would think that a group that discussed at length 
 recently no mantra, no thoughts would have a bit more room for a few more 
 thoughts.

More thoughts on the subject would provide the intellect with more room to 
play, to attempt to 'pin down' what enlightenment 'Is'...
But enlightenment is not a thought process, it's not of the mind...
It's getting beyond the mind, as experienced by transcending thought, by 
transcending the mantra...

Becoming familiar with just being with 'Being'...

Also, during sutra practice; it's a matter of staying in 'Transcendence'...it's 
a matter of solidifying 'Being' in your experience of 'I'...

Who is experiencing?
Who is this ego, I think I am?
When I am in the transcendence, who is this feeling of 'Me'..
Where am I in the transcendent...

More and more the sense of I (ego) , becomes refined and transparent...

It helps to have what is mentioned here:

 important factors in the non-journey journey are:

•Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened), Seva 
(service to Guru or God) and Sadhana (spiritual practices)

•And the 3 V's - Vairagya (dispassion to worldly objects), Viveka 
(discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation).

•Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most important factor.

R.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[whynotnow7]

Hi Xeno, I've been enjoying your posts, though I am not sure there is a way to 
greatly simplify the language and ways we discuss enlightenment. Somehow the 
desire to get there leads both to the diversity of expression about the 
pathless path, and the agility to ultimately make one's way through the forest 
of knowledge presented.

I agree we need some conditioning to refine our discrimination towards that we 
are seeking. As for putting that coherently so that everyone gets it? I dunno, 
a fool's errand perhaps- Seems like if someone is going to get it, nothing 
stands in their way. And given that all of us think and experience so 
differently, perhaps the diversity of expression is a good thing. :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... 
wrote:

 Ravi Yogi wrote: [In a response to a rather long post about the supposed 
 'path' 
 of enlightenment, not repeated here]
 
 The important factors in the non-journey journey are:
   * Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened), 
 Seva 
 (service to Guru or God)  and Sadhana (spiritual practices)
   * And the 3 V's - Vairagya  (dispassion to worldly objects), Viveka 
 (discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation).
   * Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most important 
 factor.
 
 This response helps clarify the question or questions I was asking. There are 
 many different traditions of enlightenment, each with their own set of 
 descriptive terms, practices and techniques. Ravi Yogi uses a number of 
 special 
 terms in his response to me, most of which I do not know, and was kind enough 
 to 
 amplify them so I could grasp what they connoted.
 
 Perhaps the question I am proposing is this: is there a completely generic 
 way 
 to describe the journey of enlightenment, without the bamboozling 
 characteristics of a special vocabulary, that would appeal to the widest 
 audience? One of the problems I see is most spiritual language seems to me to 
 have strong religious connotations. When people with one religious 
 orientation 
 hear the language of another religious orientation, it tends to be very 
 off-putting. People regularly slay each other on this world in the name of 
 whatever they label as their primary or exclusive overlord (which is kind of 
 generic term for the concept 'god'), and its accompanying metaphysical 
 theological system. However the experience of enlightenment and its 
 associated 
 experiences are found across the board regardless of the spiritual camp where 
 one is parked.
 
 There are other groups, such as scientists which tend to atheism, and 
 spiritual 
 language tends to be rather unpopular with such groups. The concept of 'god' 
 does not compute, even though some scientists use the word in a very general 
 way 
 sometimes. So saying something like 'devotion to God or a teacher' might not 
 go 
 over very well. You would have to find some neutral way to explain it to 
 them. 
 One neuroscientist interested in spiritual phenomena and experiences wrote: 
 
 
 The universality of these phenomena refutes the sectarian claims of any one 
 religion. And, given that contemplatives generally present their experiences 
 of 
 self-transcendence as inseparable from their associated theology, mythology, 
 and 
 metaphysics, it is no surprise that scientists and non-believers tend to view 
 their reports as the product of disordered minds, or as exaggerated accounts 
 of 
 far more common mental states †like scientific awe, aesthetic enjoyment, 
 artistic inspiration, etc.
 
 The scientific community, and philosophers tend to be intellectual. Ravi Yogi 
 wrote at the beginning of his response to me the following:
 
 I would say not to intellectualize or philosophize too much (sushkatarka - 
 dry 
 logic), otherwise you will just end deceiving yourself - a la Vakrabuddhi or 
 the 
 Trickster.
 
 This could certainly apply to my posts, but also, over-intellectualising 
 doesn't 
 seem to work very well with simpler folk, but it is often necessary with 
 certain 
 groups. I realize that on forums the attention span often seems to be about 
 one 
 sentence in duration. One would think that a group that discussed at length 
 recently no mantra, no thoughts would have a bit more room for a few more 
 thoughts.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Ravi Yogi]

Thanks Steve, but I have never had or been accused of ADD. I patiently
read emails unless I see deceptive content which mock and ridicule
others belief - usually from the troika, then it really triggers my
real ADD - Attention Detest (for) Dimwits.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@...
wrote:


 Kudos to you Ravi for reading these long articles.  Who said anything
 about some kind of ADD for the Ravster?  No sir.


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  Nice article.
  I would say not to intellectualize or philosophize too much(sushka
 tarka
  - dry logic), otherwise you will just end deceiving yourself - a la
  Vakrabuddhi or the Trickster.
  A thirsty man doesn't start reading books on water, types of water,
 the
  manufacturers, suppliers, etc. - he knows he is thirsty and that he
  needs water. People who quench their thirst might react differently,
  some may become silent, some will scream in joy, some might laugh,
 some
  shed tears, these expressions don't convey the joy of quenching
 thirst,
  they are not the real thing, just the after effects and we shouldn't
  focus on that.
  Some might have quenched their thirst by drinking water from a lake,
  some from a muddy lake, some from a river - this is unnecessary
again
  and doesn't convey the joy of quenching the thirst.
  The important factors in the non-journey journey are:
  Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened),
Seva
  (service to Guru or God) and Sadhana (spiritual practices)
  And the 3 V's - Vairagya(dispassion to worldly objects),
  Viveka(discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation).
  Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most important
  factor.
  Love - Ravi Yogi
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Ravi Yogi]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius
anartaxius@... wrote:



 Ravi Yogi uses a number of special
 terms in his response to me, most of which I do not know, and was kind
enough to
 amplify them so I could grasp what they connoted.
Sorry I just used them so I could come with a set of words that start
with similar alphabet. I'm neither a scholar nor intellectual, the words
I used are common spiritual terms in Sanskrit.


 Perhaps the question I am proposing is this: is there a completely
generic way
 to describe the journey of enlightenment, without the bamboozling
 characteristics of a special vocabulary, that would appeal to the
widest
 audience?
There's plenty of giants who have tried bridge this gap; some through
intellect - I have really enjoyed Deepak Chopra and Osho in the past and
they speak/write well without the religious jargon that can be related
by Scientists, Skeptics, Atheists and the like.
Some have vanquished these barriers by pure unconditional love - like my
beloved mother and Guru Ammachi who devoid of intellectual jargon
transforms all.
 This could certainly apply to my posts, but also,
over-intellectualising doesn't
 seem to work very well with simpler folk, but it is often necessary
with certain
 groups. I realize that on forums the attention span often seems to be
about one
 sentence in duration. One would think that a group that discussed at
length
 recently no mantra, no thoughts would have a bit more room for a few
more
 thoughts.


There are plenty of intellectuals and skeptics on list as well, may be
your questions are too broad, you could may be start off by breaking
your questions into smaller pieces? Posting an initial post with
something that bashes TMO and/or MMY will also endear you to many and
make more respond, just kidding. I didn't mean to or wouldn't dare to
put an end to any discussion. It was just my 3 cents.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendence and Descriptive Language

[Ravi Yogi]

Nice article.
I would say not to intellectualize or philosophize too much(sushka tarka
- dry logic), otherwise you will just end deceiving yourself - a la
Vakrabuddhi or the Trickster.
A thirsty man doesn't start reading books on water, types of water, the
manufacturers,  suppliers, etc. - he knows he is thirsty and that he
needs water. People who quench their thirst might react differently, 
some may become silent, some will scream in joy, some might laugh, some
shed tears, these expressions don't convey the joy of quenching thirst,
they are not the real thing, just the after effects and we shouldn't
focus on that.
Some might have quenched their thirst by drinking water from a lake,
some from a muddy lake, some from a river - this is unnecessary again
and doesn't convey the joy of quenching the thirst.
The important factors in the non-journey journey are:
Three S's of spirituality - Satsang (company of the enlightened), Seva 
(service to Guru or God) and Sadhana (spiritual practices)
And the 3 V's - Vairagya(dispassion to worldly objects),
Viveka(discrimination) and Vichara(inquiry, investigation).
Above all Kripa or Grace of a Sadguru or God is the most important
factor.
Love - Ravi Yogi

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius
anartaxius@... wrote:

  If enlightenment is the experience of what we essentially are, then
it cannot
 be somewhere else than where we are, so the term 'transcendence,'
meaning
 'having gone beyond the current limits,' or something like that,
cannot mean we
 have gone into some other realm, it just refers to having a more
complete
 experience wherein we notice aspects of our experience that we had not
noticed
 before. It does not refer to an actual journey. Whatever we think we
are doing
 to have this experience, it is not bringing something new into our
life, it is
 just making us more attentive to what is there already. It is
conditioning. To
 learn to play the piano, you have to condition the mind/body a certain
way. To
 recognise and name different birds, you have to be able to
discriminate the
 different kinds, which at first you may not be able to do. You might
have to
 develop your memory to recognise birds' different coloured plumage
etc., and
 which colours fit with female or male, or the age of the birds. To
'transcend,'
 one has to condition the mind/body a certain way so that the
discriminative
 ability is enhanced. However this is done, one is learning a new
habit. A
 meditation system establishes a habit that can interfere with other
habits we
 might have, that is, de-condition those other habits, break them up;
allows us
 to unlearn those habits to a lesser or greater extent, while
establishing the
 effect of its own habit. Those other habits, primarily perceptual and
 understanding based, in this context of spiritual development are
called
 'ignorance.'


 Even though it is not an actual journey from somewhere to somewhere
else, this
 learning/unlearning process can be thought of as a journey, and we end
up
 conceptualising what is going on in this process, or borrowing someone
else's
 ideas about it. The huge variation in description of this imaginary
journey
 found in the literature, in groups practising meditation, and other
spiritually
 oriented techniques, is enough to make one wonder how much of all this
could be
 real. There seems to be a kind of fantasy overkill that develops in
spiritual
 movements over time where peoples' imaginations take over where
experience ends.
 In a scientific discipline, imagination plays a big role, scientists
come up
 with all sorts of crazy ideas to try to explain their experiences and
data. Most
 of these ideas turn out to not work out because, well, scientists test
them and
 argue among themselves and eventually filter out the crap based on the
results
 of carefully constructed test situations. For some reason, there does
not seem
 to be a very good filtering mechanism in most spiritual circles, so
the crap
 continues to circulate unabated, and sometimes it seems to develop an
 astonishing reproductive capacity as well. It often ends up in pretty
books with
 gold borders and illuminated letters, although buried in the dazzle
may be
 useful implementable plans.

 Enlightenment is a simple experience, and while the so-called path to
it can be
 made subject to a descriptive process, we might consider just how
complex that
 description needs to be to describe how to get the job done. In the
Maharishi
 system, there are these benchmark descriptions TC, CC, etc., but it
might be
 well to reflect on just how discrete these experiences are for any
particular
 person, considering there are differences in human nervous systems and
the
 programming (conditioning) of those nervous systems. Perhaps these
experiences
 blend together for some individuals, or perhaps some individuals, due
to their
 nature and backlog of experience, might skip one of the criteria
described. A
 teacher in the Zen tradition I heard once