[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: The / a lesson from witnessing this huge QA parade was that: 1) experiences were natural, they were not something to make a big fuss about, no special status was given, everything from normalization to peak experiences were part of the whole, no need to make a big fuss about the whole. 2) even the most detailed clear experiences were basically classified as hmm, something good is happening, but that's not IT. That is, what many self-diagnosed, and perhaps self-confirmed to be higher states were not. It produced a certain healthy rational skepticism about self-confirmed claims of higher states. 3) one generally didn't talk about their experiences outside of the QA with MMY. Progress was being made was the only important thing. No need to talk about it or broadcast it. 4) Sort of like the first rule of enlightenment club is there is no enlightenment club. Good points, but there seems to be a pretty big reconstructionist movement here. I enjoy your posts because you acknowledge both sides of the issue. I've got to say that Barry pushes, I mean really pushes, the this guy was an average Joe, no more enlightened than the baker down the street POV. That's how I see Maharishi. I'm not asking you to. If I understand what Barry often says, (and I'm sure I don't), he pretty much debunks the whole notion of higher states of conscioussness. Not true. Different states of consciousness exist; I have experienced many of the ones Maharishi talked about. What I am not sold on is that any of them were higher. I am content to interpret my experiences as merely different from waking state, not higher. Also, I reject much of the mythology surrounding what the various states mean according to Hinudism and according to Maharishi. Curtis too seems to be in this camp. Pretty much it can be chalked up to random brain activity, I don't know about Curtis but I would not agree with this. These experiences of different states of consciousness *can* appear as a result of *random* brain activity (that is, appearing unsought in those not on a spiritual path), but that is not usual. It is more common that they appear after years of practicing some technique, which may have an effect in causing these states to manifest. ...that we humans like to chalk up to something special. I guess since we can't prove it in an objective way, it's all subjective speculation. Me (as Barry would say). I got too much wonder going on to buy into that. Buy into *what*? 1) Nothing you said here represents what I believe. 2) I never tried to sell you what I believe, so there was nothing to buy into. Someday you people need to learn the difference between jackpotting ideas around for fun and trying to sell them. I kinda get it that you can't do the former without doing the latter, but some of us can.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Not true. Different states of consciousness exist; I have experienced many of the ones Maharishi talked about. What I am not sold on is that any of them were higher. I am content to interpret my experiences as merely different from waking state, not higher. Also, I reject much of the mythology surrounding what the various states mean according to Hinudism and according to Maharishi. Maybe higher has a undesireable connotation. But if you have come to conclude that there is a path of some kind, then likely there would be a goal (of some kind). I am not saying that one has to broadcast, hey everyone, see the path I'm on, I'm heading somewhere, and there are some neat milestones I've observed What I'm saying is that at some point you decided to pursue something along spiritual lines. To use a somewhat MMY analogy. If you are in a boat on a river, you are going to arrive somewhere, whether you try to or not. It's the fact that you got into the boat, and got onto the river. The rest takes care of itself to some extent. Yea, there are a lot of places you can get stuck, you can capsize, you can decide to get off for a while. But likely over the course of time you are likely to make your way down the river. The scenerary may change somewhat over time, due to seasons or other factors, but I think the landscape will have a lot of similarites for all those going down the river.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Turq, I am unable to keep up these conversations in real time, but I have some comments in the exchanges below. Dude, that subject is so last week by now. What you are asking about are multiple experiences that I had with these teachers, several times a week or month, for years. Some felt subjectively similar, some different. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into it with you in any more depth than that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Turq, I am unable to keep up these conversations in real time, but I have some comments in the exchanges below. I'll follow up a little, now that I've had my coffee, and try to explain to you why I'm not following up any more than I am. You are a newb here, and unaware to some extent of the history of this place. There are a few people here whose idea of fun is having conversations that resemble two bulldogs tugging at the same bone. They can go on and on and on and on about the things they debate. Some have been known to try to draw out such discussions for weeks, or longer. It's almost as if they believe that someone can win or prove themselves right about matters of pure opinion (as, IMO, all assertions of spiritual 'truth' are). This is just not my idea of fun. I prefer throwing out ideas, for no other purpose than playing with them, and to see whether anyone else can have fun playing with them, too. The conversations I like the best are largely composed of what some would demonize as non-sequiturs, where one person throws out Idea A, the next jumps to Idea Z because he or she sees a link between the two, and the third maybe jumps to Idea M. I see no need to pursue the forms of traditional, linear debate when discussing ideas for fun. You strike me as being somewhat of the bulldog mentality. That's fine, if it floats yer boat, but please don't expect it to float mine. When I get a whiff of someone who seems to want to lock horns and turn what could be a pleasant, short-lived exchange of opinions into a long, protracted exchange or debate, my first impulse is to blow the person off and do something more interesting, like washing my socks. I understand that you have questions about the experiences I presented *for informational purposes only*, and I wish you luck in finding answers to them. I have none for you. I am not selling anything here, least of all my opinion as anything but opinion. IMO none of my ideas are worth forming attachments to, and none are worth defending. As for your comments about me reacting to either criticism or appreciation of what I write the same way (not at all), that in my opinion is a compliment. Thank you for noticing. You may see these things differently, and that is your right. Might I suggest, if you want to get into long, protracted discussions here, that you pick someone on this forum who enjoys such things. I do not. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have encountered one teacher that could in the space of a few days get a fair number of persons to experience a shift in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, do they have names? Yes, but they would do you no good. Two of the four I've met are now dead, and the other two I have heard went back to Bhutan, and are no longer working with non-Bhutanese or non-Tibetan students. They gave work- ing with Westerners a shot on teaching tours and (from what I am told) now prefer to work only with people who can make a longer-term commitment. They didn't like the drop in approach. And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast an SOC? I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective experience of working with these teachers. I am asking this because your description makes it sound like a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the past about darshan, being able to put on a SOC so powerfully that others in the audience could be in the same room and somehow recognize in the teacher's SOC the counterpart of a matching SOC that was within them, just not realized yet, and as a result access it. That's a more non-doing theory, but this is pure spec- ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only *that* it was done. It makes me think of something like in old science fiction movies (say 1940) where the doctor says If I can just get to the laboratory I can create a ray which will change his SOC. It sounds completely science fictiony, until you have experienced it. Having done so does not make it in the least more understandable or less fantastic; but you've had the subjective experience. With the material you presented here, it seems like you could have just made this up. I could have, but I didn't. On the other hand, if it pleases you to consider it fiction, that is your right and I won't spend even the tiniest bit of effort trying to convince you otherwise. I don't understand it myself; I just experienced it. And clearly I'm not attempting to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: I agree - this is odd, to say the least - that your Master (at the time) would not say something to you quietly just to acknowledge the experience you were having. It never occurred to me before that MMY seemed not to talk to people one on one about their experiences. When I had one of my more major experiences, I was late to get to the lecture hall in Humboldt (could not figure out how to come out of meditation since I thought I had to cause the experience to end before opening my eyes! Finally just gave up, opened my eyes, and went to the cafeteria anyway). So I was late to dinner and then showed up at the lecture hall about 15 minutes into the talk he was giving. I was still having the experience, just the beginning of a fade. I walked in the door way at the back of this huge hall, and it seemed to me that just as I entered MMY turned his head and looked right over at me, right in the eye and nodded - I felt he knew exactly what I was experiencing and nodded to say so. That could have all been wishful thinking. But I continue to think he knew. I had an experience once, and I don't know if it was real or imagined. But I had the intent desire that MMY acknowledge me, or recognize me in some manner. It was a time when I was with him personally in a course setting, and I recall that he looked over at me, and began laughing. As I said, looking back on it, I don't know if it was real or not. If I were pressed on the issue, I would say it happened. When I tried to have his attention or acknowledgment that he even knew I excisted, or during times of bliss when I tried to seek his approoval, he ignored me. Then suddenly, when I was doing something right (apparently) he would give shaktipat resulting in 4-5 days of the most intense bliss and 24/7 wakefullness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to say about it because, after all, what is there to say? It was your subjective experience and thus essentially valid; there is nothing I or anyone can say about a subjective exper- ience other than That's cool, or Whatever. :-) As I said, from my side I never experienced anything similar with him. Once, in fact, in Fiuggi, I was curious as to whether he'd notice anything different in *my* SOC because I'd been witnessing 24/7 for about a week, my subjective experience pretty much mapping one to one to his descriptions of CC. As it turned out, at the height of this experience he was giving advanced techniques and I got to go up and sit by his side, literally at his feet, and have him spend a few minutes with me one on one, talking to me first and then giving me the advanced technique. He didn't notice a thing. From my side, I didn't notice any change between full- on witnessing and that profound, everpresent silence you spoke of before while sitting a foot away from him, or during, or after. No effect whatsoever, and as I said, he didn't notice any change in my SOC from his side. There was a line of others waiting for their techniques so I didn't bother him with any questions at that time, and before I had a chance to do so the experiences had faded and my questions and any confirmation from him would have been irrelevant. I've actually heard the same experience from others. At the height of their highest experiences, mapping from their perspective one to one to his descriptions of CC, they got to be close to Maharishi and he never noticed. So much for the notion of like knows like. Either that or he really didn't care enough about his students to notice them, period. Or any other explan- ation you prefer. I agree - this is odd, to say the least - that your Master (at the time) would not say something to you quietly just to acknowledge the experience you were having. Thank you again for yet another thoughtful reply. Yes, that thought occurred to me, even at the time. And yet. And yet I was at that point -- 5 months into rounding and not yet made a TM teacher -- such a TB that I found ways to write off this experience as Not Particularly Significant. I mean, what could be significant about it? One of his students having subjectively realized the goal he'd been selling all this time? Even if the student was just experiencing early on experiences of the enlight- enment process and not fully established in CC, if you were a Maha Rishi, shouldn't you have noticed? And yet. At the time, I was such a TB that I felt that any fault -- if there was one -- had to be mine. Here I was, experiencing word-for-word the goal that he'd sold me five years earlier. What sweat off his balls was that, I told myself. He has far larger concerns. Such is youth. :-) It never occurred to me before that MMY seemed not to talk to people one on one about their experiences. It occurred to me, early on, because I had experienced it. When I had one of my more major experiences, I was late to get to the lecture hall in Humboldt (could not figure out how to come out of meditation since I thought I had to cause the experience to end before opening my eyes! Finally just gave up, opened my eyes, and went to the cafeteria anyway). So I was late to dinner and then showed up at the lecture hall about 15 minutes into the talk he was giving. I was still having the experience, just the beginning of a fade. I walked in the door way at the back of this huge hall, and it seemed to me that just as I entered MMY turned his head and looked right over at me, right in the eye and nodded - I felt he knew exactly what I was experiencing and nodded to say so. That could have all been wishful thinking. But I continue to think he knew. And I, for one, am not going to dispute it. This, for me, is a fundamental part of the wonder of the spiritual path. What significance do we give our personal, subjective experiences? Do we consider them true, because we experienced them, or even Truth, because We experienced them, or are they just more data in the input queue of our internal AI servers? I had similar experiences with Rama, although never with Maharishi. I'd walk into a room not having seen him in a week or so and during that time I'd gone through Major Changes and subjectively felt as if I were glowing like a 10,000 watt light bulb. ( Unecological, I admit, but the best metaphor I could think up on the spur of the moment. :-) And he'd notice. Sometimes he'd even come up
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
Thank you for your reply. Not informative for my curiosity about these things. I was just curious. I had not intended to 'lock horns' on this one, as you put it. However, I suppose if someone wanted to really get you to talk more openly about things, the spiritual technique of waterboarding might be one of the few that would bring a result. Unfortunately that technique is kind of hands on. I hope you have a generous supply of socks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Turq, I am unable to keep up these conversations in real time, but I have some comments in the exchanges below. I'll follow up a little, now that I've had my coffee, and try to explain to you why I'm not following up any more than I am. You are a newb here, and unaware to some extent of the history of this place. There are a few people here whose idea of fun is having conversations that resemble two bulldogs tugging at the same bone. They can go on and on and on and on about the things they debate. Some have been known to try to draw out such discussions for weeks, or longer. It's almost as if they believe that someone can win or prove themselves right about matters of pure opinion (as, IMO, all assertions of spiritual 'truth' are). This is just not my idea of fun. I prefer throwing out ideas, for no other purpose than playing with them, and to see whether anyone else can have fun playing with them, too. The conversations I like the best are largely composed of what some would demonize as non-sequiturs, where one person throws out Idea A, the next jumps to Idea Z because he or she sees a link between the two, and the third maybe jumps to Idea M. I see no need to pursue the forms of traditional, linear debate when discussing ideas for fun. You strike me as being somewhat of the bulldog mentality. That's fine, if it floats yer boat, but please don't expect it to float mine. When I get a whiff of someone who seems to want to lock horns and turn what could be a pleasant, short-lived exchange of opinions into a long, protracted exchange or debate, my first impulse is to blow the person off and do something more interesting, like washing my socks. I understand that you have questions about the experiences I presented *for informational purposes only*, and I wish you luck in finding answers to them. I have none for you. I am not selling anything here, least of all my opinion as anything but opinion. IMO none of my ideas are worth forming attachments to, and none are worth defending. As for your comments about me reacting to either criticism or appreciation of what I write the same way (not at all), that in my opinion is a compliment. Thank you for noticing. You may see these things differently, and that is your right. Might I suggest, if you want to get into long, protracted discussions here, that you pick someone on this forum who enjoys such things. I do not. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have encountered one teacher that could in the space of a few days get a fair number of persons to experience a shift in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, do they have names? Yes, but they would do you no good. Two of the four I've met are now dead, and the other two I have heard went back to Bhutan, and are no longer working with non-Bhutanese or non-Tibetan students. They gave work- ing with Westerners a shot on teaching tours and (from what I am told) now prefer to work only with people who can make a longer-term commitment. They didn't like the drop in approach. And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast an SOC? I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective experience of working with these teachers. I am asking this because your description makes it sound like a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the past about darshan, being able to put on a SOC so powerfully that others in the audience could be in the same room and somehow recognize in the teacher's SOC the counterpart of a matching SOC that was within them, just not realized yet, and as a result access it. That's a more non-doing theory, but this is pure spec- ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only *that* it was done. It makes me think of something like in old science fiction movies (say 1940) where the doctor says If I can just get to the laboratory I can create a ray which will
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: My favorite such moment, just as a suddenly-triggered- memory aside, took place in Amsterdam. Me and a bunch of other guys had gone there to teach meditation, for free. The idea was that we would go and offer free courses in meditation, see who came, and then after a few months he'd come over and give a big public talk. So, having the liberty to do so, I went over to Amsterdam for a few weeks, planning to spend the first week teach- ing before he arrived for his talk and spend the two weeks afterwards teaching some more. As it turned out, other students had the same idea about the week before, and they wanted to teach, too. I graciously stepped aside and allowed them to do so, because I knew that I'd still be in Amsterdam, and thus able to do some teaching, for a couple of weeks after they left. This left me with not a whole fucking lot to do there for that first week but wander around and get to know Amsterdam. Good Thing or Big Mistake for me karmically. My life has never been the same since. Anyway, the talk around the teaching apartment, after the students had gone home, was often -- among this group of pseudo-celibate guys -- Who is going to be the first to hit the Red Light District? I listened to their raps about this but to tell the truth wasn't all that interested because I got over my Red Light District fetish when I was 15. I waited until they'd finished and then said, The real ques- tion is who is going to be the first person to hit the coffeehouses and smoke some Amsterweed? Dead silence. You could have heard a flea fart. :-) But then I raised my hand, and broke the silence. Everybody laughed, because they thought I was making a joke. But that's exactly what I did. The next day I found a cool coffeehouse, bought a big fuckin' joint of a brand of Amsterweed called -- no shit -- Laughing Buddha, and inhaled my first puff of that herb since the late Sixties. And it was good. :-) I thoroughly enjoyed having my assemblage point shifted in a major way by the improvements that the Dutch had made to lowly marijuana. :-) The point, and the relevance to the above stories about running into your spiritual teacher after or during a cool period of time for you subjectively, is that after the week was up I wound up sitting across a table from Rama at the five-star hotel he was staying at. It was just me, one other student, and Rama. As you might imagine, I was sitting there thinking, What if he can tell that I've been toking up every night? What will he say? What will he do? He looked at me, not having seem me for a few weeks, and said, This place agrees with you. I haven't seen you this happy and this full of light in years. Go figure. Go fuckin' figure. I know. We were so young then that we did not have the simple wisdom to ask the obvious questions, like what do you make of my current experiences (to MMY), or how can this be if I have been smoking dope for the past week? And we were settled into a mode of thinking that shied away from being so direct and even thinking like that (at least I was) and we were young and respecting our older revered teachers. That was certainly part of it. Thanks again for getting what I was getting at in relating this story. Part of it was indeed that reluctance to ask the dude hard questions like, Now wait a minute...I know you have no hard and fast rules about doing drugs, but how can you reconcile what you just said to me with what you've said before about grass lowering one's state of attention? As you say, I was reluctant to get into that level of detail with him, so I didn't broach the subject at the time (the day he was to give his talk). As it turned out, given the experience at the talk itself, and his reaction to it, which triggered my heavy doubts about him and whether I should continue studying with him, I didn't broach the subject later, either. The reception of the students we had invited to his talk was...uh...less than favorable. They not only didn't like him, some of them hated him. From his side, he took this very personally and started (from my point of view) acting out his frustration with them during the talk itself. Imagine some of the ways Jim Flanegin acted out on this forum when people didn't respond to his announced enlight- enmentitudeness the way he wanted them to, squared. :-) He cancelled the entire Amsterdam teaching experi- ment and called off the game, took his ball and went home, Some of the things he said about the experience soured me forever on him and left me wondering more about *him* than the Dutch folks who had rejected him. He saw absolutely no fault from his side, and I did. He'd rolled into town like a Dick On
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: As it turned out, at the height of this experience he was giving advanced techniques and I got to go up and sit by his side, literally at his feet, and have him spend a few minutes with me one on one, talking to me first and then giving me the advanced technique. He didn't notice a thing. ... There was a line of others waiting for their techniques so I didn't bother him with any questions at that time, and before I had a chance to do so the experiences had faded and my questions and any confirmation from him would have been irrelevant. I've actually heard the same experience from others. At the height of their highest experiences, mapping from their perspective one to one to his descriptions of CC, they got to be close to Maharishi and he never noticed. So much for the notion of like knows like. Either that or he really didn't care enough about his students to notice them, period. Or any other explan- ation you prefer. I agree - this is odd, to say the least - that your Master (at the time) would not say something to you quietly just to acknowledge the experience you were having. Thank you again for yet another thoughtful reply. Yes, that thought occurred to me, even at the time. And yet. And yet I was at that point -- 5 months into rounding and not yet made a TM teacher -- such a TB that I found ways to write off this experience as Not Particularly Significant. I mean, what could be significant about it? One of his students having subjectively realized the goal he'd been selling all this time? Even if the student was just experiencing early on experiences of the enlight- enment process and not fully established in CC, if you were a Maha Rishi, shouldn't you have noticed? And yet. At the time, I was such a TB that I felt that any fault -- if there was one -- had to be mine. Here I was, experiencing word-for-word the goal that he'd sold me five years earlier. What sweat off his balls was that, I told myself. He has far larger concerns. Such is youth. :-) It never occurred to me before that MMY seemed not to talk to people one on one about their experiences. It occurred to me, early on, because I had experienced it. When I had one of my more major experiences, I was late to get to the lecture hall in Humboldt (could not figure out how to come out of meditation since I thought I had to cause the experience to end before opening my eyes! Finally just gave up, opened my eyes, and went to the cafeteria anyway). So I was late to dinner and then showed up at the lecture hall about 15 minutes into the talk he was giving. I was still having the experience, just the beginning of a fade. I walked in the door way at the back of this huge hall, and it seemed to me that just as I entered MMY turned his head and looked right over at me, right in the eye and nodded - I felt he knew exactly what I was experiencing and nodded to say so. That could have all been wishful thinking. But I continue to think he knew. And I, for one, am not going to dispute it. This, for me, is a fundamental part of the wonder of the spiritual path. What significance do we give our personal, subjective experiences? Do we consider them true, because we experienced them, or even Truth, because We experienced them, or are they just more data in the input queue of our internal AI servers? ... And he'd notice. Sometimes he'd even come up to me after the meeting and talk to me about it, asking What have you been up to that has you glowing so brightly? ... He looked at me, not having seem me for a few weeks, and said, This place agrees with you. I haven't seen you this happy and this full of light in years. Go figure. Go fuckin' figure. I know. We were so young then that we did not have the simple wisdom to ask the obvious questions, like what do you make of my current experiences (to MMY), or how can this be if I have been smoking dope for the past week? And we were settled into a mode of thinking that shied away from being so direct and even thinking like that (at least I was) and we were young and respecting our older revered teachers. I heard from others at the time that Rama was able to do these incredible things witnessed by hundreds, not just a few. How in the world do you explain that and then have him say what he did to you? Yeah, go figure sums it up. My experience and observation was that MMY was quite involved in acknowledging and providing feedback on experience. First, in every flower line (4-8 per day) he would stop at at particular person and say Hmm, enjoying, Hmm, very good or
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: when people didn't respond to his announced enlight- enmentitudeness the way he wanted them to. As elaborated in an adjacent post, the 10,000 QA at the mic between MMY and those on the course were often about experiences. I never saw a big reaction from MMY. No hot damn! thats IT! You GOT it bro!! High five! One got guidance, but not ego boosting (which is a step in the counter direction). Sometimes there was ego busting. The / a lesson from witnessing this huge QA parade was that: 1) experiences were natural, they were not something to make a big fuss about, no special status was given, everything from normalization to peak experiences were part of the whole, no need to make a big fuss about the whole. 2) even the most detailed clear experiences were basically classified as hmm, something good is happening, but that's not IT. That is, what many self-diagnosed, and perhaps self-confirmed to be higher states were not. It produced a certain healthy rational skepticism about self-confirmed claims of higher states. 3) one generally didn't talk about their experiences outside of the QA with MMY. Progress was being made was the only important thing. No need to talk about it or broadcast it. 4) Sort of like the first rule of enlightenment club is there is no enlightenment club.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
Tart, *not* wishing to argue with you or diminish what you say in any way, just presenting a Deva's Advocate position the same way Curtis might, do you notice that the personalized feedback I have highlighted below, along with my occasional comments in brackets, is a lot like cold reading of pretend psychics or stage magicians or charlatan astrologers? That is, no actual personal information is conveyed at all. Instead, a general statement that could apply to anyone is presented, leaving the person to whom it is presented to project into it whatever meaning they wish to. In other words, each of these statements can be seen as fodder for confirmation bias, and not personal at all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: My experience and observation was that MMY was quite involved in acknowledging and providing feedback on experience. First, in every flower line [* Just pointing out that waiting in a flower line is in itself setting up confirmation bias. You're standing there for minutes or hours waiting, waiting, waiting, priming yourself for something good to happen. Who should be surprised when it does? *] (4-8 per day) he would stop at at particular person and say *Hmm, enjoying, Hmm, very good* or something similar -- which appeared to be an acknowledgment and encouragement of their particular state or experience at that time. For example, as MMY entered into the lecture hall, a woman (said later) she was seeing the heavens open up, and hordes of angels or such descend as MMY entered the hall) and he stopped and said *Hmm, its beautiful, yes*. And he acknowledged personal situations. At the beginning of my TTC he asked each of us to come forward, to approach him (I think we gave him a flower, or simply bowed our heads) and he said to me *ah, you made it*. Prior to that, while I had been on two courses with him, up to that time there was no reason for him to know who I was - I had not met privately with him or been at the mic for questions. But it had been a big production to get to TTC -- and he somehow knew that and acknowledged it. Some years later, a friend who had been teaching in a distant land came back to see him and the first thing MMY said was *Hmm, so you have been bored, yes?* My friend was very clear in his mind that MMY was referring to his many dalliances with local women. [* Again, no specific information was conveyed, merely a vague, generic statement that could have meant anything, but was interpreted by the student to mean whatever he determined it meant. *] snip And sometimes, *it was just a look he gave - and that was all that was needed. Or, he would just start lecturing on a point that was on someones mind* (which may have been coincidental -- but happened a lot.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Tart, *not* wishing to argue with you or diminish what you say in any way, just presenting a Deva's Advocate position the same way Curtis might, do you notice that the personalized feedback I have highlighted below, along with my occasional comments in brackets, is a lot like cold reading of pretend psychics or stage magicians or charlatan astrologers? That is, no actual personal information is conveyed at all. Instead, a general statement that could apply to anyone is presented, leaving the person to whom it is presented to project into it whatever meaning they wish to. In other words, each of these statements can be seen as fodder for confirmation bias, and not personal at all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: My experience and observation was that MMY was quite involved in acknowledging and providing feedback on experience. First, in every flower line [* Just pointing out that waiting in a flower line is in itself setting up confirmation bias. You're standing there for minutes or hours waiting, waiting, waiting, priming yourself for something good to happen. Who should be surprised when it does? *] (4-8 per day) he would stop at at particular person and say *Hmm, enjoying, Hmm, very good* or something similar -- which appeared to be an acknowledgment and encouragement of their particular state or experience at that time. For example, as MMY entered into the lecture hall, a woman (said later) she was seeing the heavens open up, and hordes of angels or such descend as MMY entered the hall) and he stopped and said *Hmm, its beautiful, yes*. And he acknowledged personal situations. At the beginning of my TTC he asked each of us to come forward, to approach him (I think we gave him a flower, or simply bowed our heads) and he said to me *ah, you made it*. Prior to that, while I had been on two courses with him, up to that time there was no reason for him to know who I was - I had not met privately with him or been at the mic for questions. But it had been a big production to get to TTC -- and he somehow knew that and acknowledged it. Some years later, a friend who had been teaching in a distant land came back to see him and the first thing MMY said was *Hmm, so you have been bored, yes?* My friend was very clear in his mind that MMY was referring to his many dalliances with local women. [* Again, no specific information was conveyed, merely a vague, generic statement that could have meant anything, but was interpreted by the student to mean whatever he determined it meant. *] snip True. These were vague (understated, or subtle are other perspectives) and surely a LOT of mood making came from such. I am reflecting on my impression -- and my experience. Just providing a counter point to the comments, as I understood them, that MMY did not provide much feedback on experience. Maybe that's true, maybe its not. Maybe there is a huge in between. And sometimes, *it was just a look he gave - and that was all that was needed. Or, he would just start lecturing on a point that was on someones mind* (which may have been coincidental -- but happened a lot.) Again, there is no way to validate this -- other than the people, including myself, got useful feedback. Maybe it was all internal. But even then points to PERHAPS more refined intuition and self-sufficiency (which MMY would have enjoyed more to see, IMO)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
when people didn't respond to his announced enlight- enmentitudeness the way he wanted them to... tartbrain: 3) one generally didn't talk about their experiences outside of the QA with MMY. Progress was being made was the only important thing. No need to talk about it or broadcast it... Well it looks like Barry wanted to part of the enlightenment club, to boost his ego? And he was disappointed when MMY didn't recognize his many 'attainments', which is weird, because Barry himself said they were a Big Whoop! Go figure?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
turquoiseb: I *did* experience what I experienced... Perception is reality?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: when people didn't respond to his announced enlight- enmentitudeness the way he wanted them to... tartbrain: 3) one generally didn't talk about their experiences outside of the QA with MMY. Progress was being made was the only important thing. No need to talk about it or broadcast it... Well it looks like Barry wanted to part of the enlightenment club, to boost his ego? And he was disappointed when MMY didn't recognize his many 'attainments', which is weird, because Barry himself said they were a Big Whoop! Go figure? Hehe, Maharishi said or did nothing when the Turqo was convinced he was withnessing, though it might well be moodmaking. Soon later he left (or some says he was kicked out of )the Movement thorougly convinced that Maharishi was not enlightened. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: My favorite such moment, just as a suddenly-triggered- memory aside, took place in Amsterdam. Me and a bunch of other guys had gone there to teach meditation, for free. The idea was that we would go and offer free courses in meditation, see who came, and then after a few months he'd come over and give a big public talk. So, having the liberty to do so, I went over to Amsterdam for a few weeks, planning to spend the first week teach- ing before he arrived for his talk and spend the two weeks afterwards teaching some more. As it turned out, other students had the same idea about the week before, and they wanted to teach, too. I graciously stepped aside and allowed them to do so, because I knew that I'd still be in Amsterdam, and thus able to do some teaching, for a couple of weeks after they left. This left me with not a whole fucking lot to do there for that first week but wander around and get to know Amsterdam. Good Thing or Big Mistake for me karmically. My life has never been the same since. Anyway, the talk around the teaching apartment, after the students had gone home, was often -- among this group of pseudo-celibate guys -- Who is going to be the first to hit the Red Light District? I listened to their raps about this but to tell the truth wasn't all that interested because I got over my Red Light District fetish when I was 15. I waited until they'd finished and then said, The real ques- tion is who is going to be the first person to hit the coffeehouses and smoke some Amsterweed? Dead silence. You could have heard a flea fart. :-) But then I raised my hand, and broke the silence. Everybody laughed, because they thought I was making a joke. But that's exactly what I did. The next day I found a cool coffeehouse, bought a big fuckin' joint of a brand of Amsterweed called -- no shit -- Laughing Buddha, and inhaled my first puff of that herb since the late Sixties. And it was good. :-) I thoroughly enjoyed having my assemblage point shifted in a major way by the improvements that the Dutch had made to lowly marijuana. :-) The point, and the relevance to the above stories about running into your spiritual teacher after or during a cool period of time for you subjectively, is that after the week was up I wound up sitting across a table from Rama at the five-star hotel he was staying at. It was just me, one other student, and Rama. As you might imagine, I was sitting there thinking, What if he can tell that I've been toking up every night? What will he say? What will he do? He looked at me, not having seem me for a few weeks, and said, This place agrees with you. I haven't seen you this happy and this full of light in years. Go figure. Go fuckin' figure. I know. We were so young then that we did not have the simple wisdom to ask the obvious questions, like what do you make of my current experiences (to MMY), or how can this be if I have been smoking dope for the past week? And we were settled into a mode of thinking that shied away from being so direct and even thinking like that (at least I was) and we were young and respecting our older revered teachers. That was certainly part of it. Thanks again for getting what I was getting at in relating this story. Part of it was indeed that reluctance to ask the dude hard questions like, Now wait a minute...I know you have no hard and fast rules about doing drugs, but how can you reconcile what you just said to me with what you've said before about grass lowering one's state of attention? As you say, I was reluctant to get into that level of detail with him, so I didn't broach the subject at the time (the day he was to give his talk). As it turned out, given the experience at the talk itself, and his reaction to it, which triggered my heavy doubts about him and whether I should continue studying with him, I didn't broach the subject later, either. The reception of the students we had invited to his talk was...uh...less than favorable. They not only didn't like him, some of them hated him. From his side, he took this very personally and started (from my point of view) acting out his frustration with them during the talk itself. Imagine some of the ways Jim Flanegin acted out on this forum when people didn't respond to his announced enlight- enmentitudeness the way he wanted them to, squared. :-) He cancelled the entire Amsterdam teaching experi- ment and called off the game, took his ball and went home, Some of the things he said about the experience soured me forever on him and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: when people didn't respond to his announced enlight- enmentitudeness the way he wanted them to. As elaborated in an adjacent post, the 10,000 QA at the mic between MMY and those on the course were often about experiences. I never saw a big reaction from MMY. No hot damn! thats IT! You GOT it bro!! High five! One got guidance, but not ego boosting (which is a step in the counter direction). Sometimes there was ego busting. The / a lesson from witnessing this huge QA parade was that: 1) experiences were natural, they were not something to make a big fuss about, no special status was given, everything from normalization to peak experiences were part of the whole, no need to make a big fuss about the whole. 2) even the most detailed clear experiences were basically classified as hmm, something good is happening, but that's not IT. That is, what many self-diagnosed, and perhaps self-confirmed to be higher states were not. It produced a certain healthy rational skepticism about self-confirmed claims of higher states. 3) one generally didn't talk about their experiences outside of the QA with MMY. Progress was being made was the only important thing. No need to talk about it or broadcast it. 4) Sort of like the first rule of enlightenment club is there is no enlightenment club. Good points, but there seems to be a pretty big reconstructionist movement here. I enjoy your posts because you acknowledge both sides of the issue. I've got to say that Barry pushes, I mean really pushes, the this guy was an average Joe, no more enlightened than the baker down the street POV. If I understand what Barry often says, (and I'm sure I don't), he pretty much debunks the whole notion of higher states of conscioussness. Curtis too seems to be in this camp. Pretty much it can be chalked up to random brain activity, that we humans like to chalk up to something special. I guess since we can't prove it in an objective way, it's all subjective speculation. Me (as Barry would say). I got too much wonder going on to buy into that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
Damn, I'm good. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Tart, *not* wishing to argue with you or diminish what you say in any way, just presenting a Deva's Advocate position the same way Curtis might, do you notice that the personalized feedback I have highlighted below, along with my occasional comments in brackets, is a lot like cold reading of pretend psychics or stage magicians or charlatan astrologers? That is, no actual personal information is conveyed at all. Instead, a general statement that could apply to anyone is presented, leaving the person to whom it is presented to project into it whatever meaning they wish to. In other words, each of these statements can be seen as fodder for confirmation bias, and not personal at all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: My experience and observation was that MMY was quite involved in acknowledging and providing feedback on experience. First, in every flower line [* Just pointing out that waiting in a flower line is in itself setting up confirmation bias. You're standing there for minutes or hours waiting, waiting, waiting, priming yourself for something good to happen. Who should be surprised when it does? *] (4-8 per day) he would stop at at particular person and say *Hmm, enjoying, Hmm, very good* or something similar -- which appeared to be an acknowledgment and encouragement of their particular state or experience at that time. For example, as MMY entered into the lecture hall, a woman (said later) she was seeing the heavens open up, and hordes of angels or such descend as MMY entered the hall) and he stopped and said *Hmm, its beautiful, yes*. And he acknowledged personal situations. At the beginning of my TTC he asked each of us to come forward, to approach him (I think we gave him a flower, or simply bowed our heads) and he said to me *ah, you made it*. Prior to that, while I had been on two courses with him, up to that time there was no reason for him to know who I was - I had not met privately with him or been at the mic for questions. But it had been a big production to get to TTC -- and he somehow knew that and acknowledged it. Some years later, a friend who had been teaching in a distant land came back to see him and the first thing MMY said was *Hmm, so you have been bored, yes?* My friend was very clear in his mind that MMY was referring to his many dalliances with local women. [* Again, no specific information was conveyed, merely a vague, generic statement that could have meant anything, but was interpreted by the student to mean whatever he determined it meant. *] snip And sometimes, *it was just a look he gave - and that was all that was needed. Or, he would just start lecturing on a point that was on someones mind* (which may have been coincidental -- but happened a lot.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore there's no such thing as the 7th state... authfriend: Plus which, as I've always understood it, the whole thing is a continuum anyway... This has been pointed out by MMY in his recording Seven States of Consciousness. Apparently Barry has never even heard any of MMY's public recordings. But, on this and other newsgroups all we can really quote with accuracy are MMY published writings and recordings. We should make a rule that only these sources can be quoted in order to prove MMY's position on aspects of the TM program. If it's published we can assume that is the official statement, not what some TM Teacher thinks they heard thirty years ago. Barry obviously has a very poor memory, so at least with Barry, almost anything he says could be a big mistake. From what I've heard, there are supposed to be no TMO tapes in the possession of individual TM Teachers - all belong to the TMO, unless somebody took a cassette tape recorder in to a lecture by MMY and recorded it on their own. Apparently I am the only respondent on this forum that owns copies of MMY's records, tapes, and books. Is that right? And, it seems that there are zero TM Teachers on FFL that are still in good standing with the TMO - all the others got kicked out of the TMO for one reason or another, just like Barry got kicked out. Correct me if I am mistaken about this. I'm in good standing. But I didn't take the rectification course so I can't initiate at this point. I also have hundreds of tapes and books. Tapes by Maharishi is freely available at vimeo and youtube. Many original tapes are available for a small cost at MUM. Whatever the Turqo writes one can basically forget, it's all distorted to fit his Buddhist view. His crusade, as many here mistakenly believes, is not against Judy but against Maharishi. When corrected by Judy in presenting falsehoods about Maharishi he turns his rage againsy her instead. He's like Sisophys, he won't get anywhere. Until he drops his hate and moves on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two and a number here might argue they experienced number 2 or what is usually called darshan even with Maharishi. The guy did have some shakti after all. If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on a bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse to experience it. Ignoring the obvious humor bait of the number two references :-), I'd love to hear from those who feel that they experienced what I'm talking about with MMY. I never did. The occasional light buzz, or a feeling of upliftment maybe, but the full-blown experience of one of his 3 higher states of consciousness, never. IMO, what most people I've talked to experience as darshan is an occult buzz, not what I'm talking about at all. As you suggest, it could be that I just didn't groove with him and did with the other teachers I wrote about originally. Did you ever experience this (being able to experience a full-blown higher state of consciousness) while with Maharishi? With anyone else? Genuinely curious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two and a number here might argue they experienced number 2 or what is usually called darshan even with Maharishi. The guy did have some shakti after all. If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on a bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse to experience it. Ignoring the obvious humor bait of the number two references :-), I'd love to hear from those who feel that they experienced what I'm talking about with MMY. I never did. The occasional light buzz, or a feeling of upliftment maybe, but the full-blown experience of one of his 3 higher states of consciousness, never. IMO, what most people I've talked to experience as darshan is an occult buzz, not what I'm talking about at all. I almost always had that lightness and quieting of thoughts and a certain sense of the aliveness of the energy in MMY's presence. But twice I had something much more,: my awareness just shifted and became infinite, there was no I to find anywhere, just infinity, and that was so powerful and stunning that I was not aware of much else at all for a while. Not much thought, just a stunned wonder and taking it all in. Then, I as I moved around and had to interact, I noticed this silence and energy just everywhere and especially where I put my attention. These 2 experiences lasted a a few hours each and then faded (during which feelings of bliss and joy were intensely everywhere). I felt bereft when they were done - smaller and trapped in the cycle of thoughts and small awareness I believe that MMY's presence triggered them. They were of a completely different nature than the buzz or lightness I usually felt around MMY. They were entirely different states of awareness. I also had a few more of these more profound and intense types of experiences (way more than the buzz) without being in MMYs presence, but directly after meditating, and once even before learning TM - at about age 18. And I think I had something similar at about age 4, after awakening from a nap in which I had dreamt that a snake was biting my left big toe! I think energy traveled from there to my brain and that began some experience. I never heard MMY talk about his darshan or that he tried to evoke these shifts in SOC's with his students. I assumed many people had this happen - one reason they stuck around even in the midst of the craziness. And we all assumed that happned all the time with those in the very inner circle like Bevan and John and skinboys. As you suggest, it could be that I just didn't groove with him and did with the other teachers I wrote about originally. Did you ever experience this (being able to experience a full-blown higher state of consciousness) while with Maharishi? With anyone else? Genuinely curious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two and a number here might argue they experienced number 2 or what is usually called darshan even with Maharishi. The guy did have some shakti after all. If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on a bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse to experience it. Ignoring the obvious humor bait of the number two references :-), I'd love to hear from those who feel that they experienced what I'm talking about with MMY. I never did. The occasional light buzz, or a feeling of upliftment maybe, but the full-blown experience of one of his 3 higher states of consciousness, never. IMO, what most people I've talked to experience as darshan is an occult buzz, not what I'm talking about at all. I almost always had that lightness and quieting of thoughts and a certain sense of the aliveness of the energy in MMY's presence. But twice I had something much more,: my awareness just shifted and became infinite, there was no I to find anywhere, just infinity, and that was so powerful and stunning that I was not aware of much else at all for a while. Not much thought, just a stunned wonder and taking it all in. Then, I as I moved around and had to interact, I noticed this silence and energy just everywhere and especially where I put my attention. These 2 experiences lasted a a few hours each and then faded (during which feelings of bliss and joy were intensely everywhere). I felt bereft when they were done - smaller and trapped in the cycle of thoughts and small awareness I believe that MMY's presence triggered them. They were of a completely different nature than the buzz or lightness I usually felt around MMY. They were entirely different states of awareness. I also had a few more of these more profound and intense types of experiences (way more than the buzz) without being in MMYs presence, but directly after meditating, and once even before learning TM - at about age 18. And I think I had something similar at about age 4, after awakening from a nap in which I had dreamt that a snake was biting my left big toe! I think energy traveled from there to my brain and that began some experience. Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to say about it because, after all, what is there to say? It was your subjective experience and thus essentially valid; there is nothing I or anyone can say about a subjective exper- ience other than That's cool, or Whatever. :-) As I said, from my side I never experienced anything similar with him. Once, in fact, in Fiuggi, I was curious as to whether he'd notice anything different in *my* SOC because I'd been witnessing 24/7 for about a week, my subjective experience pretty much mapping one to one to his descriptions of CC. As it turned out, at the height of this experience he was giving advanced techniques and I got to go up and sit by his side, literally at his feet, and have him spend a few minutes with me one on one, talking to me first and then giving me the advanced technique. He didn't notice a thing. From my side, I didn't notice any change between full- on witnessing and that profound, everpresent silence you spoke of before while sitting a foot away from him, or during, or after. No effect whatsoever, and as I said, he didn't notice any change in my SOC from his side. There was a line of others waiting for their techniques so I didn't bother him with any questions at that time, and before I had a chance to do so the experiences had faded and my questions and any confirmation from him would have been irrelevant. I've actually heard the same experience from others. At the height of their highest experiences, mapping from their perspective one to one to his descriptions of CC, they got to be close to Maharishi and he never noticed. So much for the notion of like knows like. Either that or he really didn't care enough about his students to notice them, period. Or any other explan- ation you prefer. I never heard MMY talk about his darshan or that he tried to evoke these shifts in SOC's with his students. Neither did I. I assumed many people had this happen - one reason they stuck around even in the midst of the craziness. And we all assumed that happned all the time with those in the very inner circle like Bevan and John and skinboys. I think there was *great deal* of assuming going on. :-) Assuming that Maharishi was enlightened when he never claimed to be. Assuming he'd just know when you got enlightened. Assuming that being in his presence would get you high, and then (Holy confirmation bias, Batman!) having that happen. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore there's no such thing as the 7th state. For that matter, even within CC, there's room for growth since there are plenty of TMers who have been tested in physiological studies who claim to be having episodes of pure consciousness 24/7 for years and decades at a time, which is one definition of CC, but none report non-stop transcending during TM, which is another definition of CC. I think you have to be careful here. If you are in 'waking state,' and then you learn TM, and it works, you will from time to time experience 'transcendental consciousness.' This is a separate experience. No mantra, no thought, but wakeful. This is a very early state on a spiritual path. In what is called 'cosmic consciousness,' the TM CC, that wakeful silent value is held. You no longer transcend, you experience yourself as that value. Transcending is a verb, going beyond. If you are already at that beyond, you do not go anywhere. That is, in meditation, while there may be thoughts which eventually vanish, the pure state of silent wakefulness being experienced, there is no process of transcending in CC, in that *you* are transcending. The process is the same, but when you start, you are already experiencing yourself as that transcendent, so *you* do not transcend. As the transcendent, you experience the process of thought refining, or not refining, but it is separate from you. Everything is the same, except your understanding and POV of the process. Maharishi, on a tape, had a discussion with someone about where you go in CC if you die. The guy wanted to come back (to do good, to be an avatar or something) Maharishi said if you do not go anywhere, that is if you are established in CC, you cannot come back. The two went back and forth on this point for some time. If someone is in CC, they are not going to transcend anymore, even though the process of meditation goes on as before. Eventually that process will result in the end of CC when everything is experienced as being (usually spelled with a capital B). You will not experience inward silence as separate from activity. Meditation will still happen, and have some variety, but really nothing will happen, there being no place to go beyond to, inward or outward, the surface and the depth will be pretty much the same. That does not mean you would stop meditating at that point. No matter what state you are in, the processes, and your life go on as before. Consciousness does not change, rather through practice there comes more attentiveness of its extent. This is called 'expansion of consciousness,' but that is really a fib. Rather, as experience becomes more refined, one notices more and more of what is already before one, and one experiences what one did not notice before, but was there anyway. This might actually be experienced as a kind of bummer. Those deep satisfying early meditations that seemed to take you to some far away blissful place get replaced by a sense of shallowness, where everything seems pretty much similar. The non-transcendental shallow meditation. That is because you have more or less arrived. So at this point one might need some advice on what is going on, so one can properly understand and be able to allow the integration of everything to proceed, otherwise the lack of understanding might become a barrier to letting the process complete. Note Turq's comment below. The pie of consciousness and its so-called states can be intellectually cut up in many ways, and to some extent these are arbitrary; hopefully some of these ways of describing experience actually correspond with what people experience, in which case they might be useful. In Zen in a simplified overview, there is just 'ignorance' and 'enlightenment.' In between those two words, there are various kinds of muck one can go through. In other forms of Buddhism, there might be other kinds of experiences that are described, which might not be described as muck. Certain kinds of experiences might be related to the kinds of techniques practiced. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: [...] Please bear in mind that none of these people believed in the seven states of consciousness as presented by Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its ten thousand states of mind (which is a euphemism for lots and lots of them, possibly an infinite number of them not a number per se).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
On 06/15/2011 03:16 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two and a number here might argue they experienced number 2 or what is usually called darshan even with Maharishi. The guy did have some shakti after all. If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on a bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse to experience it. Ignoring the obvious humor bait of the number two references :-), I'd love to hear from those who feel that they experienced what I'm talking about with MMY. I never did. The occasional light buzz, or a feeling of upliftment maybe, but the full-blown experience of one of his 3 higher states of consciousness, never. IMO, what most people I've talked to experience as darshan is an occult buzz, not what I'm talking about at all. As you suggest, it could be that I just didn't groove with him and did with the other teachers I wrote about originally. Did you ever experience this (being able to experience a full-blown higher state of consciousness) while with Maharishi? With anyone else? Genuinely curious. It wasn't a case of grooving as I treated the encounters as objectively as I could, no mood making. Remember, I came to TM from having an experience some 3 years earlier of trying a mantra in a book and having kundalini experience. Between that and learning TM, I did quite a bit of reading, meditation experiments and studying yoga teachings. After I learned TM and was one day explaining it to a skeptical friend he told me I started glowing during the explanation. The first time I saw Maharishi was probably in the spring of 1974 when he was in San Francisco during the Merv Griffin years. I think Clint Eastwood and definitely Burt Reynolds and Merv were there. Again I tried to observe objectively. Next was on TTC when he made us teachers. He was one person when he sat on the stage and asked for experiences and another when he made us teachers. He was very business like with the latter and showed some knowledge of the technology he was using. Then I saw him again when he sneaked into Seattle in the summer of 1978. Shakti doesn't mean that the person is enlightened but to have helps a lot to take the person down the road as it will condition the nervous system for it. You can also charge up by meditating a bit before satsang (hint, hint). In my tantric path the ideal is to have enough shakti you can at least give 7 people shaktipat a day. Taking a crowd to a temporary experience of a higher state of consciousness would require group shaktipat and some teachers can do it. I never heard of Maharishi doing that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two and a number here might argue they experienced number 2 or what is usually called darshan even with Maharishi. The guy did have some shakti after all. If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on a bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse to experience it. Ignoring the obvious humor bait of the number two references :-), I'd love to hear from those who feel that they experienced what I'm talking about with MMY. I never did. The occasional light buzz, or a feeling of upliftment maybe, but the full-blown experience of one of his 3 higher states of consciousness, never. IMO, what most people I've talked to experience as darshan is an occult buzz, not what I'm talking about at all. I almost always had that lightness and quieting of thoughts and a certain sense of the aliveness of the energy in MMY's presence. But twice I had something much more,: my awareness just shifted and became infinite, there was no I to find anywhere, just infinity, and that was so powerful and stunning that I was not aware of much else at all for a while. Not much thought, just a stunned wonder and taking it all in. Then, I as I moved around and had to interact, I noticed this silence and energy just everywhere and especially where I put my attention. These 2 experiences lasted a a few hours each and then faded (during which feelings of bliss and joy were intensely everywhere). I felt bereft when they were done - smaller and trapped in the cycle of thoughts and small awareness I believe that MMY's presence triggered them. They were of a completely different nature than the buzz or lightness I usually felt around MMY. They were entirely different states of awareness. I also had a few more of these more profound and intense types of experiences (way more than the buzz) without being in MMYs presence, but directly after meditating, and once even before learning TM - at about age 18. And I think I had something similar at about age 4, after awakening from a nap in which I had dreamt that a snake was biting my left big toe! I think energy traveled from there to my brain and that began some experience. Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to say about it because, after all, what is there to say? It was your subjective experience and thus essentially valid; there is nothing I or anyone can say about a subjective exper- ience other than That's cool, or Whatever. :-) As I said, from my side I never experienced anything similar with him. Once, in fact, in Fiuggi, I was curious as to whether he'd notice anything different in *my* SOC because I'd been witnessing 24/7 for about a week, my subjective experience pretty much mapping one to one to his descriptions of CC. As it turned out, at the height of this experience he was giving advanced techniques and I got to go up and sit by his side, literally at his feet, and have him spend a few minutes with me one on one, talking to me first and then giving me the advanced technique. He didn't notice a thing. From my side, I didn't notice any change between full- on witnessing and that profound, everpresent silence you spoke of before while sitting a foot away from him, or during, or after. No effect whatsoever, and as I said, he didn't notice any change in my SOC from his side. There was a line of others waiting for their techniques so I didn't bother him with any questions at that time, and before I had a chance to do so the experiences had faded and my questions and any confirmation from him would have been irrelevant. I've actually heard the same experience from others. At the height of their highest experiences, mapping from their perspective one to one to his descriptions of CC, they got to be close to Maharishi and he never noticed. So much for the notion of like knows like. Either that or he really didn't care enough about his students to notice them, period. Or any other explan- ation you prefer. I agree - this is odd, to say the least - that your Master (at the time) would not say something to you quietly just to acknowledge the experience you were having. It never occurred to me before that MMY seemed not to talk to people one on one about their experiences. When I had one of my more major experiences, I was late to get to the lecture hall in Humboldt (could not figure out how to come out of meditation since I thought I had to cause the experience to end before opening my eyes! Finally just gave up, opened my eyes, and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to say about it because, after all, what is there to say? It was your subjective experience and thus essentially valid; there is nothing I or anyone can say about a subjective exper- ience other than That's cool, or Whatever. :-) As I said, from my side I never experienced anything similar with him. Once, in fact, in Fiuggi, I was curious as to whether he'd notice anything different in *my* SOC because I'd been witnessing 24/7 for about a week, my subjective experience pretty much mapping one to one to his descriptions of CC. As it turned out, at the height of this experience he was giving advanced techniques and I got to go up and sit by his side, literally at his feet, and have him spend a few minutes with me one on one, talking to me first and then giving me the advanced technique. He didn't notice a thing. From my side, I didn't notice any change between full- on witnessing and that profound, everpresent silence you spoke of before while sitting a foot away from him, or during, or after. No effect whatsoever, and as I said, he didn't notice any change in my SOC from his side. There was a line of others waiting for their techniques so I didn't bother him with any questions at that time, and before I had a chance to do so the experiences had faded and my questions and any confirmation from him would have been irrelevant. I've actually heard the same experience from others. At the height of their highest experiences, mapping from their perspective one to one to his descriptions of CC, they got to be close to Maharishi and he never noticed. So much for the notion of like knows like. Either that or he really didn't care enough about his students to notice them, period. Or any other explan- ation you prefer. I agree - this is odd, to say the least - that your Master (at the time) would not say something to you quietly just to acknowledge the experience you were having. Thank you again for yet another thoughtful reply. Yes, that thought occurred to me, even at the time. And yet. And yet I was at that point -- 5 months into rounding and not yet made a TM teacher -- such a TB that I found ways to write off this experience as Not Particularly Significant. I mean, what could be significant about it? One of his students having subjectively realized the goal he'd been selling all this time? Even if the student was just experiencing early on experiences of the enlight- enment process and not fully established in CC, if you were a Maha Rishi, shouldn't you have noticed? And yet. At the time, I was such a TB that I felt that any fault -- if there was one -- had to be mine. Here I was, experiencing word-for-word the goal that he'd sold me five years earlier. What sweat off his balls was that, I told myself. He has far larger concerns. Such is youth. :-) It never occurred to me before that MMY seemed not to talk to people one on one about their experiences. It occurred to me, early on, because I had experienced it. When I had one of my more major experiences, I was late to get to the lecture hall in Humboldt (could not figure out how to come out of meditation since I thought I had to cause the experience to end before opening my eyes! Finally just gave up, opened my eyes, and went to the cafeteria anyway). So I was late to dinner and then showed up at the lecture hall about 15 minutes into the talk he was giving. I was still having the experience, just the beginning of a fade. I walked in the door way at the back of this huge hall, and it seemed to me that just as I entered MMY turned his head and looked right over at me, right in the eye and nodded - I felt he knew exactly what I was experiencing and nodded to say so. That could have all been wishful thinking. But I continue to think he knew. And I, for one, am not going to dispute it. This, for me, is a fundamental part of the wonder of the spiritual path. What significance do we give our personal, subjective experiences? Do we consider them true, because we experienced them, or even Truth, because We experienced them, or are they just more data in the input queue of our internal AI servers? I had similar experiences with Rama, although never with Maharishi. I'd walk into a room not having seen him in a week or so and during that time I'd gone through Major Changes and subjectively felt as if I were glowing like a 10,000 watt light bulb. ( Unecological, I admit, but the best metaphor I could think up on the spur of the moment. :-) And he'd notice. Sometimes he'd even come up to me after the meeting and talk to me about it, asking What have you been up to that has you glowing so brightly? But did that mean anything? Not unless you think that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
Turq, I am unable to keep up these conversations in real time, but I have some comments in the exchanges below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have encountered one teacher that could in the space of a few days get a fair number of persons to experience a shift in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, do they have names? Yes, but they would do you no good. Two of the four I've met are now dead, and the other two I have heard went back to Bhutan, and are no longer working with non-Bhutanese or non-Tibetan students. They gave work- ing with Westerners a shot on teaching tours and (from what I am told) now prefer to work only with people who can make a longer-term commitment. They didn't like the drop in approach. And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast an SOC? I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective experience of working with these teachers. I am asking this because your description makes it sound like a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the past about darshan, being able to put on a SOC so powerfully that others in the audience could be in the same room and somehow recognize in the teacher's SOC the counterpart of a matching SOC that was within them, just not realized yet, and as a result access it. That's a more non-doing theory, but this is pure spec- ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only *that* it was done. It makes me think of something like in old science fiction movies (say 1940) where the doctor says If I can just get to the laboratory I can create a ray which will change his SOC. It sounds completely science fictiony, until you have experienced it. Having done so does not make it in the least more understandable or less fantastic; but you've had the subjective experience. With the material you presented here, it seems like you could have just made this up. I could have, but I didn't. On the other hand, if it pleases you to consider it fiction, that is your right and I won't spend even the tiniest bit of effort trying to convince you otherwise. I don't understand it myself; I just experienced it. And clearly I'm not attempting to sell it to anyone, because as far as I know there is nothing to sell any more. You may treat what I wrote however you want. I wrote it because I ran into some old friends and we got to talking about this form of teaching (which we all have experienced), and that was fresh in my mind. I wrote what I wrote (as I often do) in an attempt to clarify *for myself* some of the discussions we had and the thoughts still rattling around in my head as a result. It is a great story idea, but how could someone find out that what you say here is real? Even worse, if you experienced it yourself, how could you convince *yourself* that it was real, much less anyone else? :-) The reason I brought this up is what I experienced was different, at least in the manner in which it arose. Prior to TM, I had tried various other things. One of these things was a teaching environment in which a person's system of belief was essentially in a situation where it would not work. It was constantly under attack. Eventually, at least for some in this environment, one would just let go, some obstacle or idea, or stress, whatever you want to call it would blow off and there would be an experience of 'expanded consciousness,' a feeling of great relief, a lot of bliss, a real high. Eventually the high would retreat and experience closed down again, but it would last for several days, and even after it closed down, one was not back to square one, one was changed in some way, at least a small part of the experience remained. Sometimes these experiences, once triggered this way would happen spontaneously, completely unbidden, when taking a walk, or driving. Each time it blew something off, and things felt freer afterward. This is different than taking a drug for example. One can get high on a psychotropic drug like LSD. These experiences can be fantastic. But afterward, nothing remains, no growth, no feeling freer, no sense one's experience has expanded in any way. Spiritual growth, if one wants to call it that and make it sound like a progression, has a progressive quality to it unlike an artificial chemical high that is induced, and then retreats. It is like the brain is rewired in some way. So, when I questioned the reality of what you said happened to you, about these guys projecting an SOC it was because 1} My experiences opened in a different way, and 2) the putting on of SOCs as if putting
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
Wayback. Warning!, Warning!, Warning!. Where is the scientific evidence? Where is the objective verification? Don't you know this is simple MOODMAKING or RANDAM BRAIN ACTIVITY. You are goring some sacred cows by describing this experience. For what it's worth, I've also had nice experiences similiar to this. But to discuss them openly like this can open you up to some serious doubting. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two and a number here might argue they experienced number 2 or what is usually called darshan even with Maharishi. The guy did have some shakti after all. If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on a bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse to experience it. Ignoring the obvious humor bait of the number two references :-), I'd love to hear from those who feel that they experienced what I'm talking about with MMY. I never did. The occasional light buzz, or a feeling of upliftment maybe, but the full-blown experience of one of his 3 higher states of consciousness, never. IMO, what most people I've talked to experience as darshan is an occult buzz, not what I'm talking about at all. I almost always had that lightness and quieting of thoughts and a certain sense of the aliveness of the energy in MMY's presence. But twice I had something much more,: my awareness just shifted and became infinite, there was no I to find anywhere, just infinity, and that was so powerful and stunning that I was not aware of much else at all for a while. Not much thought, just a stunned wonder and taking it all in. Then, I as I moved around and had to interact, I noticed this silence and energy just everywhere and especially where I put my attention. These 2 experiences lasted a a few hours each and then faded (during which feelings of bliss and joy were intensely everywhere). I felt bereft when they were done - smaller and trapped in the cycle of thoughts and small awareness I believe that MMY's presence triggered them. They were of a completely different nature than the buzz or lightness I usually felt around MMY. They were entirely different states of awareness. I also had a few more of these more profound and intense types of experiences (way more than the buzz) without being in MMYs presence, but directly after meditating, and once even before learning TM - at about age 18. And I think I had something similar at about age 4, after awakening from a nap in which I had dreamt that a snake was biting my left big toe! I think energy traveled from there to my brain and that began some experience. I never heard MMY talk about his darshan or that he tried to evoke these shifts in SOC's with his students. I assumed many people had this happen - one reason they stuck around even in the midst of the craziness. And we all assumed that happned all the time with those in the very inner circle like Bevan and John and skinboys. As you suggest, it could be that I just didn't groove with him and did with the other teachers I wrote about originally. Did you ever experience this (being able to experience a full-blown higher state of consciousness) while with Maharishi? With anyone else? Genuinely curious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: As I said, from my side I never experienced anything similar with him. Looking back, I can't say that I ever noticed anything in the way of darshan from him. I will allow that it could have been too subtle for me to notice. But I did have an experience once, where I worked myself into a devotional frenzy, and had the sensation of my heart melting. It was a physical sensation in the area of my heart, and it felt like it, well, melted. It was exquisite. It happened prior to meditation in Courcheval France when I was staying in the annex hotel during the first six month course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: I agree - this is odd, to say the least - that your Master (at the time) would not say something to you quietly just to acknowledge the experience you were having. It never occurred to me before that MMY seemed not to talk to people one on one about their experiences. When I had one of my more major experiences, I was late to get to the lecture hall in Humboldt (could not figure out how to come out of meditation since I thought I had to cause the experience to end before opening my eyes! Finally just gave up, opened my eyes, and went to the cafeteria anyway). So I was late to dinner and then showed up at the lecture hall about 15 minutes into the talk he was giving. I was still having the experience, just the beginning of a fade. I walked in the door way at the back of this huge hall, and it seemed to me that just as I entered MMY turned his head and looked right over at me, right in the eye and nodded - I felt he knew exactly what I was experiencing and nodded to say so. That could have all been wishful thinking. But I continue to think he knew. I had an experience once, and I don't know if it was real or imagined. But I had the intent desire that MMY acknowledge me, or recognize me in some manner. It was a time when I was with him personally in a course setting, and I recall that he looked over at me, and began laughing. As I said, looking back on it, I don't know if it was real or not. If I were pressed on the issue, I would say it happened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: There is another way of teaching. It is possible, for teachers who are capable of such things, to talk about states of consciousness while putting on the SOC in question and then radiating or broadcasting it so powerfully that the students can put it on and wear it themselves as they listen to the talk. Continuing this rap because the subject is still fresh in my mind as the result of reconnecting with a couple of old friends who share my experience with the Practice method and being able to discuss it with them... My opinion is that the Practice method described above is possibly more interesting (for those who have run into a teacher who can do it, and whose predilections groove with that approach) than the Theory method in two respects. First, the hands on, get to wear the SOC as it's being described approach is IMO more effective at presenting the distinctions *between* different SOCs. Second, IMO it has the benefit of loosening the students' attachment to any particular SOC, and to believing that any of them are higher or better or more Real than the others. My fondest memories of the Practice approach are when one of the teachers I worked with would broadcast to us not just one SOC, but many, and in a short period of time. This was a very real experience of Tantra, the juxtaposition of opposites. For example, the teacher might start the talk/ demo by describing the nature of the world around us as seen from waking state. Naturally, we would all be in that state as he talked, and so the teacher's descriptions of the world and How It Worked were obvious to us; all we had to do was look around and see that his descriptions of the world matched our subjective experience of it, from this particular SOC. But then he'd flip us, and broadcast another state, say CC. And everything would change. One's first impression, sitting there in a completely different SOC, was that the world had a completely different look and feel than it had only a few seconds ago. Then the teacher would start to describe the world and How It Worked from this second SOC, and again these descriptions now matched our subjective experience. Whereas -- and this is the important point -- the descriptions we'd been given just a few seconds ago did not. They were no longer true or valid from this new SOC. And then he'd flip us again. Say, into UC. And again, every- thing would change. And then the teacher would describe the mechanics of how the world worked from this SOC, and again it would match our subjective experience of Unity. And then the teacher would finish up the talk/demo by flipping us back and forth between these different states of consciousness, at times as quickly as he could snap his fingers. With every flip, we got to *experience* the look and feel of the world when seen through this SOC and how it worked, so the distinctions between the different states became very clear. It was in a very real sense a hands on demo of Maharishi's Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. As a result of having had this experience, I would reword MMY's statement as Reality is different in different states of con- sciousness. When you've been flipped like this, several times a week, for years, you don't really have the same relationship to the word Reality that some have. In fact, you stop capital- izing the word in your mind, because it's been made clear to you that there is no such thing as Reality, only constantly-changing realities, none better or higher than the other, only different. This, in my opinion, was more valuable to me as a student of self discovery than the experience -- as neat as it was -- of getting to put on and wear all of these different states of consciousness. The process of being flipped through many of them, in rapid succession, with the nature of the world and How It Worked changing with each flip, left me with no way to glom onto any of them as Reality. I no longer even believe in the *concept* of one highest Reality. There are just dif- ferent subjective states of consciousness or awareness, in each of which the world and How It Works (and thus the nature of reality) is different. Not better, not higher, just different. This is why I have been able to RELAX about my own spiritual path, and not feel that I needed to seek any particular SOC. I've been there, done that with many of them. And I enjoyed them all. But none struck me -- either when I was wearing them as the result of whatever it was that the teacher did to broadcast them to me, or later, when I re-accessed these states of consciousness on my own -- as any ultimate or highest SOC that I should consider a goal or a valued destination along the spiritual path. For me, the spiritual journey is all about walking the path and enjoying the walk, not arriving somewhere. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have encountered one teacher that could in the space of a few days get a fair number of persons to experience a shift in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, do they have names? And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast an SOC? I am asking this because your description makes it sound like a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? It makes me think of something like in old science fiction movies (say 1940) where the doctor says If I can just get to the laboratory I can create a ray which will change his SOC. With the material you presented here, it seems like you could have just made this up. It is a great story idea, but how could someone find out that what you say here is real? The attack of Ray Gun Bob Swami, Five States of Consciousness Seminar for just $49.95 - One Day Only at... Do you have names, dates, locations? Who are these teachers? One of my favorite teachers was named Mentor. But he was just a character in a science fiction story, but he (or it) had the power to change a person's SOC. Remember, walking the path is fine. We all do this. But the idea is for the path to go away, and before it does, it is not all groovy and enjoyable, some really difficult experiences can arise. Some day maybe we can discuss your extensive use of quote marks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: There is another way of teaching. It is possible, for teachers who are capable of such things, to talk about states of consciousness while putting on the SOC in question and then radiating or broadcasting it so powerfully that the students can put it on and wear it themselves as they listen to the talk. Continuing this rap because the subject is still fresh in my mind as the result of reconnecting with a couple of old friends who share my experience with the Practice method and being able to discuss it with them... My opinion is that the Practice method described above is possibly more interesting (for those who have run into a teacher who can do it, and whose predilections groove with that approach) than the Theory method in two respects. First, the hands on, get to wear the SOC as it's being described approach is IMO more effective at presenting the distinctions *between* different SOCs. Second, IMO it has the benefit of loosening the students' attachment to any particular SOC, and to believing that any of them are higher or better or more Real than the others. My fondest memories of the Practice approach are when one of the teachers I worked with would broadcast to us not just one SOC, but many, and in a short period of time. This was a very real experience of Tantra, the juxtaposition of opposites. For example, the teacher might start the talk/ demo by describing the nature of the world around us as seen from waking state. Naturally, we would all be in that state as he talked, and so the teacher's descriptions of the world and How It Worked were obvious to us; all we had to do was look around and see that his descriptions of the world matched our subjective experience of it, from this particular SOC. But then he'd flip us, and broadcast another state, say CC. And everything would change. One's first impression, sitting there in a completely different SOC, was that the world had a completely different look and feel than it had only a few seconds ago. Then the teacher would start to describe the world and How It Worked from this second SOC, and again these descriptions now matched our subjective experience. Whereas -- and this is the important point -- the descriptions we'd been given just a few seconds ago did not. They were no longer true or valid from this new SOC. And then he'd flip us again. Say, into UC. And again, every- thing would change. And then the teacher would describe the mechanics of how the world worked from this SOC, and again it would match our subjective experience of Unity. And then the teacher would finish up the talk/demo by flipping us back and forth between these different states of consciousness, at times as quickly as he could snap his fingers. With every flip, we got to *experience* the look and feel of the world when seen through this SOC and how it worked, so the distinctions between the different states became very clear. It was in a very real sense a hands on demo of Maharishi's Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. As a result of having had this experience, I would reword MMY's statement as Reality is different in different states of con- sciousness. When you've been flipped like this, several times a week, for years, you don't really have the same relationship to the word Reality that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have encountered one teacher that could in the space of a few days get a fair number of persons to experience a shift in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, do they have names? Yes, but they would do you no good. Two of the four I've met are now dead, and the other two I have heard went back to Bhutan, and are no longer working with non-Bhutanese or non-Tibetan students. They gave work- ing with Westerners a shot on teaching tours and (from what I am told) now prefer to work only with people who can make a longer-term commitment. They didn't like the drop in approach. And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast an SOC? I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective experience of working with these teachers. I am asking this because your description makes it sound like a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the past about darshan, being able to put on a SOC so powerfully that others in the audience could be in the same room and somehow recognize in the teacher's SOC the counterpart of a matching SOC that was within them, just not realized yet, and as a result access it. That's a more non-doing theory, but this is pure spec- ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only *that* it was done. It makes me think of something like in old science fiction movies (say 1940) where the doctor says If I can just get to the laboratory I can create a ray which will change his SOC. It sounds completely science fictiony, until you have experienced it. Having done so does not make it in the least more understandable or less fantastic; but you've had the subjective experience. With the material you presented here, it seems like you could have just made this up. I could have, but I didn't. On the other hand, if it pleases you to consider it fiction, that is your right and I won't spend even the tiniest bit of effort trying to convince you otherwise. I don't understand it myself; I just experienced it. And clearly I'm not attempting to sell it to anyone, because as far as I know there is nothing to sell any more. You may treat what I wrote however you want. I wrote it because I ran into some old friends and we got to talking about this form of teaching (which we all have experienced), and that was fresh in my mind. I wrote what I wrote (as I often do) in an attempt to clarify *for myself* some of the discussions we had and the thoughts still rattling around in my head as a result. It is a great story idea, but how could someone find out that what you say here is real? Even worse, if you experienced it yourself, how could you convince *yourself* that it was real, much less anyone else? :-) That's the position I'm in. Remember, walking the path is fine. We all do this. But the idea is for the path to go away... According to whom? Not according to me. For me, the path is just for the walking, without any fixed destination or goal. ...and before it does, it is not all groovy and enjoyable, some really difficult experiences can arise. Speak for yourself. Attempts to speak for everyone don't usually impress me very much. :-) Some day maybe we can discuss your extensive use of quote marks. Or not. I care as little about what you think of my writing style as I do what you think of its content. Really. But thanks for responding in a civil manner. That is not always the case on this forum.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast an SOC? I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective experience of working with these teachers. I am asking this because your description makes it sound like a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the past about darshan, being able to put on a SOC so powerfully that others in the audience could be in the same room and somehow recognize in the teacher's SOC the counterpart of a matching SOC that was within them, just not realized yet, and as a result access it. That's a more non-doing theory, but this is pure spec- ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only *that* it was done. One facet of this that most intrigues me, because it is such a game changer compared to almost all other descriptions of different states of consciousness, is that these folks had the ability to put on a state of consciousness *at will*. Think about that. The model most of us have been presented with along the spiritual path is that SOCs are achieved or realized, but then you're kinda stuck with them. You get to CC, but you can't then put on the consciousness of normal waking state if you want to, say, for teaching purposes. Similarly, if you get to UC, you can't then backtrack during a talk on GC and temporarily wear that state of consciousness in order to model it or demo it for your students. These guys could. They could change states of conscious- ness more quickly than you can change clothes. They weren't stuck in *any* of them. I find that not only fascinating, but far more impressive than the traditional model of unidirectional, linear progression through the different states of consciousness. At least one of them spoke about this. In his opinion, all of these states of consciousness were *congruent*, meaning that they were simultaneously present at all times. You merely accessed the state you wanted. There was no achieving or realization needed, merely the decision to select from a menu of available options. Clearly, these guys all believed in free will. :-) Please bear in mind that none of these people believed in the seven states of consciousness as presented by Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its ten thousand states of mind (which is a euphemism for lots and lots of them, possibly an infinite number of them not a number per se).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: This morning's cafe rap is purely informative. In it I'll springboard off of one of my favorite quotes of recent years and how I think it's relevant to two vastly different forms of spiritual teaching, and why I prefer one of them over the other. (Note that I use the word prefer. This is NOT the same as saying that one of these approaches is better than the other, merely that someone might prefer one over the other, depending on their predilection in life.) However, Barry will do his damndest not only to make his preferred approach *sound* better than the other, he will also attempt to portray himself as better for preferring that approach and to demean those whose predilection in life is the other approach (i.e., TMers, of course). Note in particular his final paragraph below: Some, on the other hand, might not only be happy with the theoretical approach to spiritual teaching, they might actually prefer it, the way that some prefer reading or hearing about other people's spiritual experiences to having their own. Different strokes for different folks. IOW, his disclaimer above is nothing more than lip service. He does not have the slightest intention of describing the approaches in such a way as to suggest MMY's approach was as good as the one Barry prefers. Regulars here, BTW, will be aware that Barry has delivered this particular rap many, many times, yet he presents it as if it were new and fresh. The quote is: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. Most spiritual traditions -- including, of course, TM -- teach on the basis of presenting a theory about some experience or ability or state of consciousness *to those who have never experienced it*. This method of teaching is necessary because the teacher has no way to give the student the experience he's talking about in real time, here and now. The experience or ability or SOC is always something promised, something that the student will experience someday, or Real Soon Now. But never Right Now. For example, Maharishi would give talk after talk after talk to his students about CC, GC, and UC, knowing that the people in the audience had never experienced these states, and thus just had to take his word for it that 1) they were as he described them, 2) that he knew what he was talking about, and 3) that what they felt like subjectively was what he said they felt like. Same with the siddhis. He talked *about* them, but could neither demonstrate them nor give his students the ability to witness them, at least as they have been traditionally described. That is, no one has ever actually levitated, or turned invisible, or seen anyone who can. It's all theory, around which a set of dogmas and knowledge has been constructed to convince the students that they know all about these SOCs or siddhis and that they understand them. There is another way of teaching. It is possible, for teachers who are capable of such things, to talk about states of consciousness while putting on the SOC in question and then radiating or broadcasting it so powerfully that the students can put it on and wear it themselves as they listen to the talk. If the talk is about CC, the teacher is able to temporarily boost the students' SOC from wherever it was before the talk/demo started *into* the state of CC. The students get to subjectively experience the SOC being talked about. Same with GC or UC. Same with more finite or granular states of attention, such as the variant of waking state from which one can see auras or other subtle phenomena, or see the future, or read minds. As the teacher is describing these states, the student is able to actually DO the things the teacher is talking about. With siddhis, if the teacher is capable of performing them, it is not as common for the student to be able to perform them, too. If the teacher, for example, is demon- strating the siddhi of levitation, and giving his talk about that phenomenon while hovering in mid-air exactly the way a brick doesn't, it is not likely that the student will lift up off their chair and join the teacher in mid- air. What *does* happen when witnessing the siddhis being performed, however, is that the student gets to feel the energy field produced by those siddhis being performed. That energy field (in my experience) explains the nature of the siddhi far better than any amount of talk about the siddhi. So those are the two main approaches to spiritual teaching, as I see them, and as I have experienced them in my life. I prefer the second, because of the quote I posted at the start of this rap. Being able to put on and wear a SOC is practice, not dry theory. It is also IMO far more effective at presenting that SOC or ability than merely talking about the theory of it. And sitting in
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip It was in a very real sense a hands on demo of Maharishi's Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. As a result of having had this experience, I would reword MMY's statement as Reality is different in different states of con- sciousness. Well, actually, MMY said it both ways, depending on the context. In his teaching the two were equivalent. When you've been flipped like this, several times a week, for years, you don't really have the same relationship to the word Reality that some have. In fact, you stop capital- izing the word in your mind, because it's been made clear to you that there is no such thing as Reality, only constantly-changing realities, none better or higher than the other, only different. Well, actually, there is such a thing as Reality, that Reality being that there are many different, constantly changing realities. One way or another, you're ultimately stuck with a single Reality. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore there's no such thing as the 7th state. For that matter, even within CC, there's room for growth since there are plenty of TMers who have been tested in physiological studies who claim to be having episodes of pure consciousness 24/7 for years and decades at a time, which is one definition of CC, but none report non-stop transcending during TM, which is another definition of CC. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: [...] Please bear in mind that none of these people believed in the seven states of consciousness as presented by Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its ten thousand states of mind (which is a euphemism for lots and lots of them, possibly an infinite number of them not a number per se).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore there's no such thing as the 7th state. Plus which, as I've always understood it, the whole thing is a continuum anyway. MMY's 7 states (at least from CC on) are benchmarks along a line of continuous development. You can put in as many benchmarks as you want (10,000 on up to infinity if you get off on big numbers and think they make your scheme better than one that uses only 7), but the number doesn't change the nature of the continuum. Has nothing to do with believing in a particular number of benchmarks, except in terms of believing that number is more useful for your teaching purposes. Barry also writes: The model most of us have been presented with along the spiritual path is that SOCs are achieved or realized, but then you're kinda stuck with them. You get to CC, but you can't then put on the consciousness of normal waking state if you want to, say, for teaching purposes. Similarly, if you get to UC, you can't then backtrack during a talk on GC and temporarily wear that state of consciousness in order to model it or demo it for your students. Sure you can. At every point along the continuum, the level you've attained includes every previous level. If you want to communicate successfully, you have to address your students from whatever level they're at, or you won't communicate successfully. For that matter, even within CC, there's room for growth since there are plenty of TMers who have been tested in physiological studies who claim to be having episodes of pure consciousness 24/7 for years and decades at a time, which is one definition of CC, but none report non-stop transcending during TM, which is another definition of CC. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: [...] Please bear in mind that none of these people believed in the seven states of consciousness as presented by Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its ten thousand states of mind (which is a euphemism for lots and lots of them, possibly an infinite number of them not a number per se).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore there's no such thing as the 7th state... authfriend: Plus which, as I've always understood it, the whole thing is a continuum anyway... This has been pointed out by MMY in his recording Seven States of Consciousness. Apparently Barry has never even heard any of MMY's public recordings. But, on this and other newsgroups all we can really quote with accuracy are MMY published writings and recordings. We should make a rule that only these sources can be quoted in order to prove MMY's position on aspects of the TM program. If it's published we can assume that is the official statement, not what some TM Teacher thinks they heard thirty years ago. Barry obviously has a very poor memory, so at least with Barry, almost anything he says could be a big mistake. From what I've heard, there are supposed to be no TMO tapes in the possession of individual TM Teachers - all belong to the TMO, unless somebody took a cassette tape recorder in to a lecture by MMY and recorded it on their own. Apparently I am the only respondent on this forum that owns copies of MMY's records, tapes, and books. Is that right? And, it seems that there are zero TM Teachers on FFL that are still in good standing with the TMO - all the others got kicked out of the TMO for one reason or another, just like Barry got kicked out. Correct me if I am mistaken about this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
There is another way of teaching... Bhairitu: If some folks didn't experience maybe they hit him on a bad day or their nervous system was just too coarse to experience it... Well, I suppose that MMY had that certain something, in order influence Barry to stay in the TMO for ten or thirteen years. We all know there's no money in it - I mean who would want to spend ten years being a pauper working for the TMO? It's even more amazing that Barry is STILL talking about MMY after all these years. MMY must have made one hell of an impression on Barry! Go figure. What was it, exactly, that made folks like Barry try to sell the snake-oil for so long? Was it Barry's ego, or did he really think he could change the world? In Barry's case, he seems to have really sucked as a teacher, based on what he has written on two newsgroups, so he's kind of hard to figure out. It may be that the real teacher here is Curtis, who despite what he writes, is really a spiritual teacher, and a true believer, from probably before he even started TM practice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
You're talking stupid conjecture again Willy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: IMplicit in MMY's theory of 7 states of consciousness is the fact that there's no end-point to growth, and therefore there's no such thing as the 7th state... authfriend: Plus which, as I've always understood it, the whole thing is a continuum anyway... This has been pointed out by MMY in his recording Seven States of Consciousness. Apparently Barry has never even heard any of MMY's public recordings. But, on this and other newsgroups all we can really quote with accuracy are MMY published writings and recordings. We should make a rule that only these sources can be quoted in order to prove MMY's position on aspects of the TM program. If it's published we can assume that is the official statement, not what some TM Teacher thinks they heard thirty years ago. Barry obviously has a very poor memory, so at least with Barry, almost anything he says could be a big mistake. From what I've heard, there are supposed to be no TMO tapes in the possession of individual TM Teachers - all belong to the TMO, unless somebody took a cassette tape recorder in to a lecture by MMY and recorded it on their own. Apparently I am the only respondent on this forum that owns copies of MMY's records, tapes, and books. Is that right? And, it seems that there are zero TM Teachers on FFL that are still in good standing with the TMO - all the others got kicked out of the TMO for one reason or another, just like Barry got kicked out. Correct me if I am mistaken about this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
emptybill: You're talking stupid conjecture again Willy. Well, so nobody made any claims about listening to any of MMY public recordings, I assumed nobody had ever heard them. It's just interesting that of all the informants making claims here, that none of them own a copy of his records, tapes, or books, or would admit it. I can make up stuff all day that I claim MMY said at 433 in 1963! Can't we assume that all of MMY's published sayings and lectures were vetted by MMY himself BEFORE being made public? Are the informants here suggesting that there was some 'secret' sayings they heard from the lips of MMY in a private meeting, but others did not? I don't think so. This has been pointed out by MMY in his recording Seven States of Consciousness. Apparently Barry has never even heard any of MMY's public recordings. But, on this and other newsgroups all we can really quote with accuracy are MMY published writings and recordings. We should make a rule that only these sources can be quoted in order to prove MMY's position on aspects of the TM program. If it's published we can assume that is the official statement, not what some TM Teacher thinks they heard thirty years ago. Barry obviously has a very poor memory, so at least with Barry, almost anything he says could be a big mistake. From what I've heard, there are supposed to be no TMO tapes in the possession of individual TM Teachers - all belong to the TMO, unless somebody took a cassette tape recorder in to a lecture by MMY and recorded it on their own. Apparently I am the only respondent on this forum that owns copies of MMY's records, tapes, and books. Is that right? And, it seems that there are zero TM Teachers on FFL that are still in good standing with the TMO - all the others got kicked out of the TMO for one reason or another, just like Barry got kicked out. Correct me if I am mistaken about this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Most spiritual teachers do have the ability to do number two Taken by itself, that is easily the sentence of the week. LOL.
