RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Are there any TMers on this list?
This was an interesting, thoughtful set of comments. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > The question is: what are the valid means of knowledge? This is a more difficult question to sort out. We have minds that think, and we have sensory experience and the two are locked together. I sometimes watch the squirrels outside collecting acorns. They seem to find them, bury them, and re-find them without much difficulty in what seems like a mass of undifferentiated leaves, branches and soil. Are they experiencing some kind of valid knowledge? > It seems to me that in order to be on a spiritual path, you'd have to hold a > belief in spirits. You'd have to believe that there are other entities out > there, other than those we can commonly see with the senses. Most people > don't see spirits very often. I disagree, but this is one possibility. I think you have to have a sense, or a more delineated belief that there is a dimension to life that is beyond what you are experiencing, but it doesn't necessarily have to be spirits or even just spirit as a general category. A spirit, a ghost, something ethereal or incorporeal may not be necessary, just that there is something more to life, even if the idea that there is something more to life turns out to be false. Some spiritual traditions seem to hold that exactly what we are experiencing at any moment is the totality of what we can know - the here and now - and that anything beyond this is delusion, and the reason we are deluded is just because we think there is something more. > However, the senses aren't much help on the spiritual path. Without the senses there would be no spiritual path or any experience except pure being, which is not very self reflective. The senses are there providing the experience of direction, expansion, contraction. Mantra meditations, including TM, begin with the experience of sound, converted to thought. The raw experience of the world is sensory experience. A lot of this is filtered down by the nervous system before it becomes conscious experience, but basically the raw character of experience is sensory. The mind is a different matter. It, via thought and conceptualisation provides commentary, a description of the raw experience so it is a secondary kind of experience. > Verbal knowledge is knowledge obtained through the senses, mainly our eyes > and ears. This includes scriptures and writings and hearsay - everything > we've heard. Only a few people have been to outer space to see the curvature > of the earth - we accept the testimony of others. You can see the curvature of the Earth from aeroplanes or even from high ground overlooking the ocean. You probably could not tell it was spherical this way. But you can look at the shadow of the Earth on the Moon, and get a bit more information. Also the Sun and Moon look circular and one might infer they are spherical. You are certainly right that the vast proportion of our verbal knowledge is second hand, though some of this is verified through experience. Particularly in relation to science, technology, industry, and trades, this second-hand information works out to be eminently practical. In spiritual circles this second-hand information does not always work out so well. > Likewise, to be part of the enlightenment tradition, you'd have to believe in > the goal of enlightenment to begin with, since enlightenment is not given in > sense perception. Most people wouldn't even think about enlightenment if they > didn't hear about or read about it in a book or scripture. Yes, you have to have the thought that enlightenment exists, that there is a way to experience it, and that it is possible for you to partake of that. > However, the senses don't seem to be much help in realizing an enlightened > state. I do not see why not. The mind's tendency to override raw experience - it's conceptualisation of experience taking the primary stage in what is regarded as true rather than the raw experience itself - is the major source of the delusion called ignorance. Emotions are involved too, as they tend to be locked in step with thoughts. The emotions anchor delusional thinking, making it harder to dislodge. However the raw experience itself just flows in via the senses; it is what is made of that after the fact that causes all the problems. > So, is there a supra-sensory knowledge, that is beyond the senses, that would > lead us to infer that there is a spiritual world out there? I don't know. For me the world that flows in through the senses is the spiritual world. It is absolutely necessary for unity. If there is something 'beyond' that, how are we supposed to experience it, since it seems unconnected to all our other kinds of experience: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, and thoughts about the same? There are dreams, but if we have some experience while waking that seems to have the character of a dream, maybe it is just a dre
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Are there any TMers on this list?
Richard, when you say the senses aren't much help, etc. that doesn't at all sound right to me. Are you saying you think they are an impediment? Neutral? On Monday, November 18, 2013 11:58 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: The question is: what are the valid means of knowledge? It seems to me that in order to be on a spiritual path, you'd have to hold a belief in spirits. You'd have to believe that there are other entities out there, other than those we can commonly see with the senses. Most people don't see spirits very often. However, the senses aren't much help on the spiritual path. Verbal knowledge is knowledge obtained through the senses, mainly our eyes and ears. This includes scriptures and writings and hearsay - everything we've heard. Only a few people have been to outer space to see the curvature of the earth - we accept the testimony of others. Likewise, to be part of the enlightenment tradition, you'd have to believe in the goal of enlightenment to begin with, since enlightenment is not given in sense perception. Most people wouldn't even think about enlightenment if they didn't hear about or read about it in a book or scripture. However, the senses don't seem to be much help in realizing an enlightened state. So, is there a supra-sensory knowledge, that is beyond the senses, that would lead us to infer that there is a spiritual world out there? On 11/18/2013 10:57 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: >Buck wrote: > >And, non-meditators.. Ha, ha, ha. >> >"They whose awareness is not open to this level of reality, what can these >eternal expressions of knowledge accomplish for them? But the whose awareness >is open to it -the field of pure consciousness, the home of all knowledge- are >profoundly established in it." >- >I presume you realise Buck, that many in this world now, and in the past >(Jesus, for example?) have experienced 'this level of reality'. Some of these >never meditated a whit, and some used some other form of meditation. Most who >meditate in the world now are not using TM, but holding that against them does >not help further the goals you espouse. Seeing the world today, you need all >the help you can get. > >Most meditators of any kind are typically at a rather rudimentary level of understanding and have simply substituted a veneer of belief about their practice on top of, or replacing whatever it was they believed in prior to learning a practice. A few lucky ones gain a deeper understanding rather quickly but for most of us it has been a long slog, so the best shot at finding meditators with some 'depth' of experience are the ones who have consistently practised the longest. TM makes certain aspects of spiritual growth easy because the technique is easy to practice, but that does not mean the spiritual path as a whole is going to be a cakewalk. > >And that quote above refers to the Vedas, but in the Bhagavad-Gita there is that comment about an enlightened being for whom the Vedas are like a well surrounded by water on all sides. > >A spiritual path is a special kind of delusion, but a delusion nonetheless; if it works, you see through it, if it does not, you remain trapped in that system of belief rather than partaking of the experience it was meant to engender. There is a crossover here too, you can be developing experience, and at the same time be delusional in understanding. A sense of exclusivity in what you know and experience is a good indicator that what you are understanding and feeling and experiencing is delusional.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Are there any TMers on this list?
The question is: what are the valid means of knowledge? It seems to me that in order to be on a spiritual path, you'd have to hold a belief in spirits. You'd have to believe that there are other entities out there, other than those we can commonly see with the senses. Most people don't see spirits very often. However, the senses aren't much help on the spiritual path. Verbal knowledge is knowledge obtained through the senses, mainly our eyes and ears. This includes scriptures and writings and hearsay - everything we've heard. Only a few people have been to outer space to see the curvature of the earth - we accept the testimony of others. Likewise, to be part of the enlightenment tradition, you'd have to believe in the goal of enlightenment to begin with, since enlightenment is not given in sense perception. Most people wouldn't even think about enlightenment if they didn't hear about or read about it in a book or scripture. However, the senses don't seem to be much help in realizing an enlightened state. So, is there a supra-sensory knowledge, that is beyond the senses, that would lead us to infer that there is a spiritual world out there? On 11/18/2013 10:57 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Buck wrote: And, non-meditators.. Ha, ha, ha. "They whose awareness is not open to this level of reality, what can these eternal expressions of knowledge accomplish for them? But the whose awareness is open to it -the field of pure consciousness, the home of all knowledge- are profoundly established in it." - I presume you realise Buck, that many in this world now, and in the past (Jesus, for example?) have experienced 'this level of reality'. Some of these never meditated a whit, and some used some other form of meditation. Most who meditate in the world now are not using TM, but holding that against them does not help further the goals you espouse. Seeing the world today, you need all the help you can get. Most meditators of any kind are typically at a rather rudimentary level of understanding and have simply substituted a veneer of belief about their practice on top of, or replacing whatever it was they believed in prior to learning a practice. A few lucky ones gain a deeper understanding rather quickly but for most of us it has been a long slog, so the best shot at finding meditators with some 'depth' of experience are the ones who have consistently practised the longest. TM makes certain aspects of spiritual growth easy because the technique is easy to practice, but that does not mean the spiritual path as a whole is going to be a cakewalk. And that quote above refers to the Vedas, but in the Bhagavad-Gita there is that comment about an enlightened being for whom the Vedas are like a well surrounded by water on all sides. A spiritual path is a special kind of delusion, but a delusion nonetheless; if it works, you see through it, if it does not, you remain trapped in that system of belief rather than partaking of the experience it was meant to engender. There is a crossover here too, you can be developing experience, and at the same time be delusional in understanding. A sense of exclusivity in what you know and experience is a good indicator that what you are understanding and feeling and experiencing is delusional.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Are there any TMers on this list?
Buck wrote: And, non-meditators.. Ha, ha, ha. "They whose awareness is not open to this level of reality, what can these eternal expressions of knowledge accomplish for them? But the whose awareness is open to it -the field of pure consciousness, the home of all knowledge- are profoundly established in it." - I presume you realise Buck, that many in this world now, and in the past (Jesus, for example?) have experienced 'this level of reality'. Some of these never meditated a whit, and some used some other form of meditation. Most who meditate in the world now are not using TM, but holding that against them does not help further the goals you espouse. Seeing the world today, you need all the help you can get. Most meditators of any kind are typically at a rather rudimentary level of understanding and have simply substituted a veneer of belief about their practice on top of, or replacing whatever it was they believed in prior to learning a practice. A few lucky ones gain a deeper understanding rather quickly but for most of us it has been a long slog, so the best shot at finding meditators with some 'depth' of experience are the ones who have consistently practised the longest. TM makes certain aspects of spiritual growth easy because the technique is easy to practice, but that does not mean the spiritual path as a whole is going to be a cakewalk. And that quote above refers to the Vedas, but in the Bhagavad-Gita there is that comment about an enlightened being for whom the Vedas are like a well surrounded by water on all sides. A spiritual path is a special kind of delusion, but a delusion nonetheless; if it works, you see through it, if it does not, you remain trapped in that system of belief rather than partaking of the experience it was meant to engender. There is a crossover here too, you can be developing experience, and at the same time be delusional in understanding. A sense of exclusivity in what you know and experience is a good indicator that what you are understanding and feeling and experiencing is delusional.
