Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO. *Without even realizing it, Curtis seems to be meditating longer each day than just about anyone on this list - on his music and his instruments. Music is a mantra and an instrument is a yoga. Music is the path to liberation. Every time Curtis picks up his guitar and hums - he is meditating.* *And, maybe without either of you realizing it, your environment, urban or rural, is the Plain of Kurekshetra - a battleground where the gunas born of nature find their balance. Life is a metaphor.* *So, come on guys - we're only talking about the TM twenty minutes twice a day! Go figure.*
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
Vipassana or mindlullness is simple concentration on the breath with the goal of calming the mind. The problem is the will-to-believe: if you don't believe in the enlightenment tradition, you might as well take a nap on the bed, and just try to relax and count sheep. When you take Buddha out of the meditation you are left with just a relaxation technique. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : M: Hey Richard. I am a fan of naps too but don't you find that meditation is a different mental state than simple relaxation? I can go along with it being a different neurology that might be a good thing without buying the whole hype package. You are still trying to sell me a package - that there's a TM and I'm just not buying it the snake-oil anymore. We are all transcending even without a technique. And, we are all meditating - when you take out the woo woo in meditation, you realize that everyone meditates. Meditation is simply thinking things over - there's no different mental state - there's only one single state of consciousness we all share - there's no you to meditate. It's all one. Barry already shot down the levels of consciousness theory. And after a nap is my favorite time to meditate so I must be looking for something else. It has already been established by Vaj that TM is just another form of napping. All this means is that if you feel you need to nap some more after napping, then you are not getting the rest you need. The immediate benefit of how it feels to meditate or how I feel right afterwards can be enough motivation to do it for me. According to Harris, the purpose of mindfulness meditation is well-being and to awaken to reality - thoughts are fleeting - there is no thing that is permanent. Meditation is based on thinking - being mindful is thinking. Even lucid dreaming is just thinking. There is no higher reality than the realization that self-consciousness is the ultimate realization. Now I am not signing up for any retreats with lots of mediation, I have too many better things to do with my time, so maybe that is where the belief would have to kick in. You might consider getting out more and Ann might consider doing some shopping in town - that's all I'm saying. Just think it over. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:56 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: I wound up feeling that Sam has his own optical blind spot about self. I get the feeling that he is FAR more influenced by the dogma that was presented to him in his early Advaitan and Dogzchen training than he lets on, and that he personally feels *very* strongly that the feeling of 'having a self' is *lesser* than the feeling of 'not having a self.' Me, I see them both as feelings, with no hierarchy in sight. I think that one of the disservices he may be doing to meditation newbies is to instill in them a feeling that they're not doing meditation right unless they have this mystical feeling of 'no-self' that he places on such a pedestal. I don't see it that way. *Apparently Barry doesn't realize that he just posted an argument for subjective idealism. T**he mystical feeling of having a self is the woo woo described by Sam Harris. **Go figure* *Another word for self is spirit - that's where the phrase spiritual life originated: the notion that humans have an eternal spirit or self that is a separate soul-monad that never dies and is reborn.* *The dogma is that we are a separate self and an eternal spirit-soul. * *The purpose of mindfulness is to demonstrate through experience that there is no underlying permanent entity called theself. You are just a bundle of material impressions with a consciousness of your own existence, or not.* ** Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. Love this! I've missed your colorful worldly spiritual It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut it for me. That has the epistemological solidity of Dungeons and Dragons role play games. Sam's description of being caught up in and identified with thoughts as suffering and experiencing the illusion of the self as freedom seems unwarranted to me. And to me. The most egregious thing about the book from my point of view is that he seems to be making a STRONG case for believing/experiencing that one 'has no self,' but he never presents any *benefits* of either believing or experiencing that. I come away not convinced he's ever achieved an experiential 'no-self' state for more than a few moments himself. I think he's passing along former teachers' feelings about this supposed state rather than his own experience with it. Only when the woo woo is removed will you realize the all-pervasive oneness of everything - we are connected,just like Indra's Net. The idea that you are a separate self is just an illusion not supported by either logic or reason. If you had a self you could see it and describe it to us. The dogma is that you were indoctrinated nto believing in a separate soul-monad. Remove the woo woo and you realize that karma connects us all. Completely agree about the suffering thang, BTW. It bugs me about Buddhism, and it bugs me about Sam's Neo-Buddhism. The experience of having a subjective self is *NOT* the same as suffering in my book, and I chafe when I hear someone talk as if it is. *It bugs you because of your basic misunderstanding of Buddhism. It is not about YOU, Barry, or YOUR suffering or not - it's about suffering anywhere at any time for anyone. It's all about your level of compassion. * *No matter how good you feel about your self and your material wealth - there are untold millions of souls out there suffering at this very moment. You can relish your own happiness and enjoy your good karma today, but so long as anyone is suffering, only the selfish will remain in a state of ignorance and fail to realize the laws of karma.* ** It reminds me of Maharishi's condescending letter to the peaceless and suffering humanity in its presumptions. They both should just speak for
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. My feelings exactly. Thanks for taking the time to put some of your agreements *and* disagreements into words, because they help me to resolve my feelings about the book as well. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. I think he did a pretty good job of describing the moment-by-moment mechanics of beginning mindfulness meditation, which is a good idea. It gives the novice a clue that the practice is not as simple as it may first appear, and that there is great depth to it that may take months or years to develop. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I agree, and I'm glad that Sam put as much effort as he did into presenting the possible benefits of meditation and spirituality to an audience probably unfamiliar with both. I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. I wound up feeling that Sam has his own optical blind spot about self. I get the feeling that he is FAR more influenced by the dogma that was presented to him in his early Advaitan and Dogzchen training than he lets on, and that he personally feels *very* strongly that the feeling of 'having a self' is *lesser* than the feeling of 'not having a self.' Me, I see them both as feelings, with no hierarchy in sight. I think that one of the disservices he may be doing to meditation newbies is to instill in them a feeling that they're not doing meditation right unless they have this mystical feeling of 'no-self' that he places on such a pedestal. I don't see it that way. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. Love this! I've missed your colorful worldly spiritual It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. Yes you could. Try Nope, like trying to force a poop, it just isn't working, Dan. For now, I agree as much as I possibly could but tomorrow is a new day and I've got the Charmin in good supply. Please no more A-Hole references, please? My post was to remind of the constant Expansion of Things. You know like in The purpose of life is the expansion of happiness. I think you misinterpreted along the way.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
Barry, Thanks for taking the time to high five me on points we shared and showing me where you may be drawing different lines. I especially appreciated how your articulated the creative flow state as it applies to writing. I hadn't thought of it that way but now I see it. I thought it would take more physical engagement ala the overload I subject myself to when I am playing a couple instruments at once. But from your input I can see how practice in something like writing can increase the engagement of our total selves over time. It may be that it is this practice that leads some people to enjoy writing and some to rarely engage in it. Certainly the amount of writing I have done on FFL has been a huge asset for me in this regard. It takes many hours of any activity to reach the states you are referring to. I am still working on it. Food for thought for sure. I think I could probably be more efficient in how I approach songwriting if I mapped across more of the things I know about these states. Just putting in the time in a more disciplined way is probably a good start! I would appreciate hearing more about your perspective on the teachers Sam mentioned since I know nothing about them. Anything you care to tell me about them and how they fit into the Buddhist world would be welcome. I agreed with Sam in his take down of the neuroscientist who wrote the book about his experiences while he was not dead. I think the reason he got Sam's goat more than most people who make such claims is that with his claimed training he is not speaking out of ignorance, he is conveniently sidestepping what he could certainly know about the issues with his claims. The biggest problem is the lack of ability to tell when exactly he had his experiences during his medical emergency and that is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who studied the brain. His lack of addressing that fundamental flaw, obvious to anyone with his or Sam's training may put him in a lower hell of bullshittery than your usual clueless layman who is not expected to know better. And his cashing in on the public's ignorance makes him out to be a practicer of shyster bullshittery which is one of its most odious forms! Thanks for extending the rap and I hope you can fill me in on the Buddhist guys. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. My feelings exactly. Thanks for taking the time to put some of your agreements *and* disagreements into words, because they help me to resolve my feelings about the book as well. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. I think he did a pretty good job of describing the moment-by-moment mechanics of beginning mindfulness meditation, which is a good idea. It gives the novice a clue that the practice is not as simple as it may first appear, and that there is great depth to it that may take months or years to develop. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I agree, and I'm glad that Sam put as much effort as he did into presenting the possible benefits of meditation and spirituality to an audience probably unfamiliar with both. I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO. Ann, I know you didn't ask directly, but I loosely translated IMHO as an indication that you are still open to new knowledge. When you write: Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO. you assume that meditation is, somehow, thinking about nothing. But it is A LOT MORE. Your body learns to experience BOTH the Transcendent AND Activity simultaneously. It IS EXACTLY what this body was really created for, IMHO. Where'd you pick up this idea that meditation takes anything away?
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : M: I did miss what you wrote before, so thanks for repeating yourself a bit. I always enjoy your nature connection writing. I still have a bit of the meditation junky in my in that I can enjoy 15 minutes just sitting in silence with eyes closed. But you live in a more easily accessed natural environment where IMO you are plunged into everything meditation gives you just by walking out your door. For me I have to plan immersion like that. I get a taste of it by feeding birds on the balcony I grow herbs in pots. But nothing compares to the kind of natural world you are able to soak in. Great life choice. I would like to pull that off someday myself. Meditation has the quality in its essence that I reach in the middle of the Potomac on my kayak, so I am glad I can rappel inn regardless of circumstances. My usual time is when I have been driving to a gig around our wretched Beltway video game death challenge. It is really great to be able to close my eyes for a few moments and then let it all go so that I can perform from a more flowing version of myself than the teeth clenched guy who has made it through the gauntlet. But again your life choices have shielded you from that. I need an urban market to support my life in the arts right now. There has to be a lot of cream in an area for a kitty like me to get enough to live on. Thanks for articulating what I sense are some excellent life choices on where to live and how to really enjoy it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Barry, Thanks for taking the time to high five me on points we shared and showing me where you may be drawing different lines. I especially appreciated how your articulated the creative flow state as it applies to writing. I hadn't thought of it that way but now I see it. I thought it would take more physical engagement ala the overload I subject myself to when I am playing a couple instruments at once. But from your input I can see how practice in something like writing can increase the engagement of our total selves over time. It may be that it is this practice that leads some people to enjoy writing and some to rarely engage in it. Certainly the amount of writing I have done on FFL has been a huge asset for me in this regard. It takes many hours of any activity to reach the states you are referring to. I am still working on it. Food for thought for sure. I think I could probably be more efficient in how I approach songwriting if I mapped across more of the things I know about these states. Just putting in the time in a more disciplined way is probably a good start! It may be easier for me to talk about achieving a flow state while writing than some people because of the very discipline I've brought to the process of writing. I've probably paid as many dues working at my keyboard as you have at your various guitar fretboards. I can type fast, and I could type just as fast (and almost as accurately) blindfolded. Thus I have a familiarity with my instrument that allows me to just let creative impulses pass through me and onto the screen, without having to ever think much about it. Flow is easier to achieve because I never have to give any thought to my instrument. I also credit my time on a.m.t. and Fairfield Life and several other forums with helping me to develop that level of being able to write without having to think about writing. The thoughts just appear in my mind, and then they appear on the screen. If they need editing, that's something that I do after the fact, once they've appeared in a baseline fashion. In general, the more profound the flow state is subjectively, the less the final product seems to require editing. Go figure. I would appreciate hearing more about your perspective on the teachers Sam mentioned since I know nothing about them. Anything you care to tell me about them and how they fit into the Buddhist world would be welcome. OK. Below... I agreed with Sam in his take down of the neuroscientist who wrote the book about his experiences while he was not dead. I think the reason he got Sam's goat more than most people who make such claims is that with his claimed training he is not speaking out of ignorance, he is conveniently sidestepping what he could certainly know about the issues with his claims. The biggest problem is the lack of ability to tell when exactly he had his experiences during his medical emergency and that is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who studied the brain. His lack of addressing that fundamental flaw, obvious to anyone with his or Sam's training may put him in a lower hell of bullshittery than your usual clueless layman who is not expected to know better. And his cashing in on the public's ignorance makes him out to be a practicer of shyster bullshittery which is one of its most odious forms! I agreed with it, too. I just detected a bit of personal pettiness associated with it. It was clearly a continuation of something that had become for him a bit of an I'm right and he's not vendetta. IMO he should have kept that shit out of his book and confined it to the media circus it originated in. Thanks for extending the rap and I hope you can fill me in on the Buddhist guys. OK, here's the short version. I have not met the primary Dogzchen teacher Harris speaks about having worked with. As I think someone here may have pointed out, he has a good rep, but I can't speak to that because I've never encountered him, his teachings, or his direct students. That said, I *have* met other Dogzchen teachers, and have been taught meditation using the rigpa techiques Harris discusses. A couple of these teachers were Tibetan, teaching in the US within a traditional Tibetan Buddhist Dogzchen lineage. I never studied with them for long periods of time, just when they were passing through whatever town I lived in. But my experience with them is similar to what Harris said -- they taught *not* by providing techniques to allow you to sneak up on unbounded, selfless awareness by focusing on a mantra or the breath or any other object of meditation, but by providing the experience ITSELF. You got a blast of what Maharishi would call pure awareness, what other Buddhists might call samadhi-in-action, so powerful that you really couldn't do much but sit there and experience it. Then, afterwards, the technique was essentially
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: But my experience with them is similar to what Harris said -- they taught *not* by providing techniques to allow you to sneak up on unbounded, selfless awareness by focusing on a mantra or the breath or any other object of meditation, but by providing the experience ITSELF. *Most Tibetan teachers don't teach the advanced techniques to people that are just attending a lecture or two and don't have the time or the inclination to dedicate time to an in-depth practice relationship. They will most likely give out instructions in basic mindfullness or vipassana, a preliminary beginner's technique centered on observing the breathing.* *In advanced Mahamudra or Dzogchen, Tibetan teachers use vipassana extensively when just getting started, but then they introduce the more advanced techniques with a greater emphasis on meditation utilizing symbolic images, mantras and visualizations. Additionally, in the Vjarayana tantric form, the true nature of mind is pointed out by the guru - a direct form of insight.* *You probably won't get this advanced training and benefit from direct transference if you are just a casual visitor, Barry.* Work cited: *The Practice of Tranquillity Insight: A Guide to Tibetan Buddhist Meditation * by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche Shambhala Publications: 1994. pg 91-93
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
So do you two high fivers hang out on the Sam Harris forum at samharris.org? It seems to be less bizzy than FFL. ;-) On 09/18/2014 10:23 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: *From:* curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Barry, Thanks for taking the time to high five me on points we shared and showing me where you may be drawing different lines. I especially appreciated how your articulated the creative flow state as it applies to writing. I hadn't thought of it that way but now I see it. I thought it would take more physical engagement ala the overload I subject myself to when I am playing a couple instruments at once. But from your input I can see how practice in something like writing can increase the engagement of our total selves over time. It may be that it is this practice that leads some people to enjoy writing and some to rarely engage in it. Certainly the amount of writing I have done on FFL has been a huge asset for me in this regard. It takes many hours of any activity to reach the states you are referring to. I am still working on it. Food for thought for sure. I think I could probably be more efficient in how I approach songwriting if I mapped across more of the things I know about these states. Just putting in the time in a more disciplined way is probably a good start! It may be easier for me to talk about achieving a flow state while writing than some people because of the very discipline I've brought to the process of writing. I've probably paid as many dues working at my keyboard as you have at your various guitar fretboards. I can type fast, and I could type just as fast (and almost as accurately) blindfolded. Thus I have a familiarity with my instrument that allows me to just let creative impulses pass through me and onto the screen, without having to ever think much about it. Flow is easier to achieve because I never have to give any thought to my instrument. I also credit my time on a.m.t. and Fairfield Life and several other forums with helping me to develop that level of being able to write without having to think about writing. The thoughts just appear in my mind, and then they appear on the screen. If they need editing, that's something that I do after the fact, once they've appeared in a baseline fashion. In general, the more profound the flow state is subjectively, the less the final product seems to require editing. Go figure. I would appreciate hearing more about your perspective on the teachers Sam mentioned since I know nothing about them. Anything you care to tell me about them and how they fit into the Buddhist world would be welcome. OK. Below... I agreed with Sam in his take down of the neuroscientist who wrote the book about his experiences while he was not dead. I think the reason he got Sam's goat more than most people who make such claims is that with his claimed training he is not speaking out of ignorance, he is conveniently sidestepping what he could certainly know about the issues with his claims. The biggest problem is the lack of ability to tell when exactly he had his experiences during his medical emergency and that is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who studied the brain. His lack of addressing that fundamental flaw, obvious to anyone with his or Sam's training may put him in a lower hell of bullshittery than your usual clueless layman who is not expected to know better. And his cashing in on the public's ignorance makes him out to be a practicer of shyster bullshittery which is one of its most odious forms! I agreed with it, too. I just detected a bit of personal pettiness associated with it. It was clearly a continuation of something that had become for him a bit of an I'm right and he's not vendetta. IMO he should have kept that shit out of his book and confined it to the media circus it originated in. Thanks for extending the rap and I hope you can fill me in on the Buddhist guys. OK, here's the short version. I have not met the primary Dogzchen teacher Harris speaks about having worked with. As I think someone here may have pointed out, he has a good rep, but I can't speak to that because I've never encountered him, his teachings, or his direct students. That said, I *have* met other Dogzchen teachers, and have been taught meditation using the rigpa techiques Harris discusses. A couple of these teachers were Tibetan, teaching in the US within a traditional Tibetan Buddhist Dogzchen lineage. I never studied with them for long periods of time, just when they were passing through whatever town I lived in. But my experience with them is similar to what Harris said -- they taught *not* by providing techniques to allow you to sneak up on unbounded, selfless awareness by focusing on a mantra or the breath or any other object of meditation, but by providing the experience ITSELF. You got a blast of what Maharishi
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
I get all that about enjoying life with eyes open. I don't do meditation much anymore, and when I do, it, it is to calm me down,or get a few minutes of deep rest. And yes, occasionally a deep transcending will occur. But I will say the hours I spent dipping the cloth, sometimes days, weeks, or months at a time, have paid off for me. There is always the story behind the story, which is what I think enlightenment, (or growing enlightenment) is all about. I also liked the comments a day or so, I think from Bharitu that enlightenment is something common in India. I came kinda late to that realization, and it has given me comfort, somehow. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I get all that about enjoying life with eyes open. I don't do meditation much anymore, and when I do, it, it is to calm me down,or get a few minutes of deep rest. And yes, occasionally a deep transcending will occur. But I will say the hours I spent dipping the cloth, sometimes days, weeks, or months at a time, have paid off for me. There is always the story behind the story, which is what I think enlightenment, (or growing enlightenment) is all about. I also liked the comments a day or so, I think from Bharitu that enlightenment is something common in India. I came kinda late to that realization, and it has given me comfort, somehow. Maharishi intentionally taught that the gains from meditation would remain. But for further development: continue meditating. it is a temptation to get some of the benefit and no do any more practice. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : M: I did miss what you wrote before, so thanks for repeating yourself a bit. I always enjoy your nature connection writing. I still have a bit of the meditation junky in my in that I can enjoy 15 minutes just sitting in silence with eyes closed. But you live in a more easily accessed natural environment where IMO you are plunged into everything meditation gives you just by walking out your door. For me I have to plan immersion like that. I get a taste of it by feeding birds on the balcony I grow herbs in pots. But nothing compares to the kind of natural world you are able to soak in. Great life choice. I would like to pull that off someday myself. Meditation has the quality in its essence that I reach in the middle of the Potomac on my kayak, so I am glad I can rappel inn regardless of circumstances. My usual time is when I have been driving to a gig around our wretched Beltway video game death challenge. It is really great to be able to close my eyes for a few moments and then let it all go so that I can perform from a more flowing version of myself than the teeth clenched guy who has made it through the gauntlet. But again your life choices have shielded you from that. I need an urban market to support my life in the arts right now. There has to be a lot of cream in an area for a kitty like me to get enough to live on. Thanks for articulating what I sense are some excellent life choices on where to live and how to really enjoy it. I can relate to the rush, the urban nature of where you live. I too have lived on the busy East Coast and although parts of it are supremely beautiful some of it feels so tired and used up. I was lucky enough (thanks, ironically, to Robin) to have stumbled onto British Columbia and Vancouver Island, in particular. Perhaps I am avoiding something, coddling myself in some way by not getting into the nitty gritty of urban life and, in particular, American urban life. Europe in all its crowded culture is much more bearable for me but crowded America reeks of malls and big box stores and homogenous sameness. It also threatens violence. I simply don't feel particularly safe in urban America. I hadn't really thought about how my current environment keeps me swaddled , protected in some significant way but you just made me more aware. You are correct when you say my life choices have shielded me. Maybe I am a coward, maybe I should be out sweatin' it out on that beltway of yours but I have found a place that is gentle and gorgeous and fresh. I am loathe to give it up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO. Ann, I know you didn't ask directly, but I loosely translated IMHO as an indication that you are still open to new knowledge. When you write: Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO. you assume that meditation is, somehow, thinking about nothing. But it is A LOT MORE. Your body learns to experience BOTH the Transcendent AND Activity simultaneously. It IS EXACTLY what this body was really created for, IMHO. Where'd you pick up this idea that meditation takes anything away? Meditation simply takes away from the time I have available to not be meditating. All my life I have preferred activity over meditation. Maybe that will change but so far eyes open wins it for me hands down.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
I think from Bharitu that enlightenment is something common in India. If you mean the kind of enlightenment we see around here on FFL and what the Movement has manifest, I agree - it doesn't exist in India either. From: steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris I get all that about enjoying life with eyes open. I don't do meditation much anymore, and when I do, it, it is to calm me down,or get a few minutes of deep rest. And yes, occasionally a deep transcending will occur. But I will say the hours I spent dipping the cloth, sometimes days, weeks, or months at a time, have paid off for me. There is always the story behind the story, which is what I think enlightenment, (or growing enlightenment) is all about. I also liked the comments a day or so, I think from Bharitu that enlightenment is something common in India. I came kinda late to that realization, and it has given me comfort, somehow. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
Not sure what you are saying here, other than your usual knee jerk reaction, which never requires much thought. I suppose the thinking process goes like this. (In the bubble) I don't particularly care for the guy making the comment. It mentions something about TM, or spirituality. I guess it's show time for me TM is yada, yada, yada. MMY is yada, yada, yada. Bevan is yada, yada, yada, for umpteenth time today, likely. (-; , ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : I think from Bharitu that enlightenment is something common in India. If you mean the kind of enlightenment we see around here on FFL and what the Movement has manifest, I agree - it doesn't exist in India either. From: steve.sundur@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris I get all that about enjoying life with eyes open. I don't do meditation much anymore, and when I do, it, it is to calm me down,or get a few minutes of deep rest. And yes, occasionally a deep transcending will occur. But I will say the hours I spent dipping the cloth, sometimes days, weeks, or months at a time, have paid off for me. There is always the story behind the story, which is what I think enlightenment, (or growing enlightenment) is all about. I also liked the comments a day or so, I think from Bharitu that enlightenment is something common in India. I came kinda late to that realization, and it has given me comfort, somehow. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. M: It does sound like this is how you are living these days Ann. Or maybe you went through MIU with more of this perspective than I did and it just took me a while to figure it out for myself. I don't know about that. I was a pretty naive twerp back at MIU. But I do know that what you wrote in that small but significant paragraph speaks completely into where I have found myself living my life, and not so much through choice but through a sort of natural inclination. I don't know if you read some of my posts with regard to this lately - about lack of guru, about my solitariness (by choice) as a young person taking long walks in the damp and the rain and the winter and through forests and finding myself happy there, breathing deeper there. There is so much in the world, from the dirt under my feet to the mutt or two lying at my side ready for some sign of love given or ready to give love back, that I feel I would be missing out with eyes closed. There is just so much goddam cool stuff everywhere and to miss even one hour of a chance to find out exactly how cool is reason for regret in my world. You know, we carry around this supposed infinite aspect of Being within us all the time, my philosophy is take that and combine it with what is going on in the world that we inhabit and see what results. For me, sitting with eyes closed is too much an indulgence in some way, too self centered. Take the awareness out there and take a chance, even if it means you fall on your face or crash through the sliding glass door. Propping oneself on one's derriere for hours at a time thinking about nothing is just not what this body was really created for, IMHO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:13 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. *Vipassana or mindlullness is simple concentration on the breath with the goal of calming the mind. The problem is the will-to-believe: if you don't believe in the enlightenment tradition, you might as well take a nap on the bed, and just try to relax and count sheep. When you take Buddha out of the meditation you are left with just a relaxation technique.* Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut it for me. That has the epistemological solidity of Dungeons and Dragons role play games. Sam's description of being caught up in and identified with thoughts as suffering and experiencing the illusion of the self as freedom seems unwarranted to me. It reminds me of Maharishi's condescending letter to the peaceless and suffering humanity in its presumptions. They both should just speak for themselves to those of us who do not share their perspective. They are trying to impose a problem on me that I do not have. I agree with Sam that the silent aspect of my consciousness is not a Self' in the way Maharishi claimed. I found this satisfying because when I tried TM again after 18 years without the belief system I was struck with how bogus this claim seemed to me. I am not sure it is realizing the illusion of self either as Sam claims. It just seems to be a thing we can do with our minds that is
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:13 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut it for me. That has the epistemological solidity of Dungeons and Dragons role play games. Sam's description of being caught up in and identified with thoughts as suffering and experiencing the illusion of the self as freedom seems unwarranted to me. It reminds me of Maharishi's condescending letter to the peaceless and suffering humanity in its presumptions. They both should just speak for themselves to those of us who do not share their perspective. They are trying to impose a problem on me that I do not have. I agree with Sam that the silent aspect of my consciousness is not a Self' in the way Maharishi claimed. I found this satisfying because when I tried TM again after 18 years without the belief system I was struck with how bogus this claim seemed to me. I am not sure it is realizing the illusion of self either as Sam claims. It just seems to be a thing we can do with our minds that is satisfying for its own sake and seems to feel like a good place to flow from afterward. Speaking of flow , this concept of flow states in activity holds much more appeal for me than static meditation. I believe we reach the goal of meditation states through many means that force us to act more directly from our more full capacity of our unconscious processes,
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
Looks like about a 5 shot Americano rap. Tried a Starbuck's Clover yet? ;-) As you know I would agree with you that ranking spiritual experiences is bogus. As I said the other day (as well as many other times) Maharishi kinda confused folks with levels of enlightenment. In many simpler Indian traditions you are either experiencing enlightenment or not. And as Earl Kaplan pointed out in that letter of his he learned what I did visiting India: enlightenment is not that uncommon. On 09/17/2014 10:13 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut it for me. That has the epistemological solidity of Dungeons and Dragons role play games. Sam's description of being caught up in and identified with thoughts as suffering and experiencing the illusion of the self as freedom seems unwarranted to me. It reminds me of Maharishi's condescending letter to the peaceless and suffering humanity in its presumptions. They both should just speak for themselves to those of us who do not share their perspective. They are trying to impose a problem on me that I do not have. I agree with Sam that the silent aspect of my consciousness is not a Self' in the way Maharishi claimed. I found this satisfying because when I tried TM again after 18 years without the belief system I was struck with how bogus this claim seemed to me. I am not sure it is realizing the illusion
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:13 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. Vipassana or mindlullness is simple concentration on the breath with the goal of calming the mind. The problem is the will-to-believe: if you don't believe in the enlightenment tradition, you might as well take a nap on the bed, and just try to relax and count sheep. When you take Buddha out of the meditation you are left with just a relaxation technique. M: Hey Richard. I am a fan of naps too but don't you find that meditation is a different mental state than simple relaxation? I can go along with it being a different neurology that might be a good thing without buying the whole hype package. And after a nap is my favorite time to meditate so I must be looking for something else. The immediate benefit of how it feels to meditate or how I feel right afterwards can be enough motivation to do it for me. Now I am not signing up for any retreats with lots of mediation, I have too many better things to do with my time, so maybe that is where the belief would have to kick in. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut it for me. That has the epistemological solidity of Dungeons and Dragons role play games. Sam's description of being caught up in and identified
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Looks like about a 5 shot Americano rap. Tried a Starbuck's Clover yet? ;-) *Non sequitur.* As you know I would agree with you that ranking spiritual experiences is bogus. As I said the other day (as well as many other times) Maharishi kinda confused folks with levels of enlightenment. *Pointing out the different levels of consciousness is probably as old as India itself. One of the oldest doctrines in India is based on numbers - the term sankhya pertains to number - a radical dualism - the three constituents and the 32 tatvas of nature. There is nothing bogus about counting - apparently the Hindus discovered the naught and Arabic numerals.* In many simpler Indian traditions you are either experiencing enlightenment or not. *In most Indian traditions there is no enlightenment tradition - the vast majority of Indians follow the Bhakt tradition based on devotional service - they do not believe in yogic personal enlightenment.* And as Earl Kaplan pointed out in that letter of his he learned what I did visiting India: enlightenment is not that uncommon. He found out that what MY was teaching is common all over India: meditation on istadevata. On 09/17/2014 10:13 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut it for me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Looks like about a 5 shot Americano rap. Tried a Starbuck's Clover yet? ;-) M: Funny. I have Internet at home where my instruments live so I don't hang out at coffee shops. In between computer time I am very noisy! Italian Bialetti coffee maker like the one you see in those old Sophia Loren movies is what I use. B:As you know I would agree with you that ranking spiritual experiences is bogus. As I said the other day (as well as many other times) Maharishi kinda confused folks with levels of enlightenment. In many simpler Indian traditions you are either experiencing enlightenment or not. And as Earl Kaplan pointed out in that letter of his he learned what I did visiting India: enlightenment is not that uncommon. M: That is a very interesting perspective. Since we have all had a range of intensity of experiences I am open to the idea that we have a continuum of experience that falls in an out of some of the criteria that are part of the enlightenment hype. A pretty small part. The goal of human life claim seems a bit over the top for me. I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. On 09/17/2014 10:13 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
ha-ha - caffeined. I agree that the 'levels' thing can be really confusing, but I do like that it shows first the lighting inside, spreading to the outside, then illuminating everything, with perception changing appropriately along the way, aka TC evolving to CC, evolving to UC. However I see your point for keeping it simple - Either way, the same process occurs. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Looks like about a 5 shot Americano rap. Tried a Starbuck's Clover yet? ;-) As you know I would agree with you that ranking spiritual experiences is bogus. As I said the other day (as well as many other times) Maharishi kinda confused folks with levels of enlightenment. In many simpler Indian traditions you are either experiencing enlightenment or not. And as Earl Kaplan pointed out in that letter of his he learned what I did visiting India: enlightenment is not that uncommon. On 09/17/2014 10:13 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut it for me. That has the epistemological solidity of Dungeons and Dragons role play games. Sam's description of being caught up in and identified with thoughts as suffering and experiencing the illusion of the self as freedom seems unwarranted to me. It reminds me of Maharishi's condescending letter to the peaceless and suffering humanity in its
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:14 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: ha-ha - caffeined. I agree that the 'levels' thing can be really confusing, but I do like that it shows first the lighting inside, spreading to the outside, then illuminating everything, with perception changing appropriately along the way, aka TC evolving to CC, evolving to UC. However I see your point for keeping it simple - Either way, the same process occurs. *The most simple point is that there is only ONE reality, not two or a myriad of individual pure consciousness - each one for a different person. There is only one single pure consciousness shared by all. It just looks divided up into levels due to maya.* ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Looks like about a 5 shot Americano rap. Tried a Starbuck's Clover yet? ;-) As you know I would agree with you that ranking spiritual experiences is bogus. As I said the other day (as well as many other times) Maharishi kinda confused folks with levels of enlightenment. In many simpler Indian traditions you are either experiencing enlightenment or not. And as Earl Kaplan pointed out in that letter of his he learned what I did visiting India: enlightenment is not that uncommon. On 09/17/2014 10:13 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I have been following the excellent comments on this topic with delight. I loved this book, especially where it helped me draw my own belief lines by disagreeing with it. Overall Sam's book is a huge step in opening up the dialogue for people who are fans of altered states but not into the presuppositions about what they mean. Barry and I have discussed how the ranking of experiences in spiritual traditions seems bogus. This is also my major criticism of Sam's ideas, but I'll start with what I found great about the book. He does an excellent job explaining his perspective on mindfulness meditation, both in techniques and its goals. It answered questions I had about my own irregular practice of mindfulness meditation and how it relates to my previous experience with TM. Without going into details I believe that both practices lead me to the same place mentally. I think the mindfulness meditation has an edge in less unwanted side effects than TM for me, and it seems a bit more efficient. I am not in a position to judge which is better or even what that concept would mean in terms of meditation. I believe neuroscience may sort this out someday, but we are a long way from enough information to draw broader conclusions. Till then I say to each his own. Meditation of any kind is nice to have in your human tool kit. (But go easy on the Kool Aid.) I have a bias toward meditation taught without the heavy belief system baggage of TM. I don't think any of that is either helpful or intellectually supportable outside the context of historical interest. Same goes for the Buddhist beliefs and assumptions. As modern people we should admit that we really don't know as much as these traditions posture by assumption about the states reached in meditation. We have an obligation to be more honest about what assumptions we are taking on faith upfront. To stick with any practice you have to have some assumptions. What they are based on is where our intellectual integrity rubber hits the road. People who want to make claims that their internal state is better than mine seem like real boors to me no matter what tradition they come from. If it is so wonderful in there then express something creatively brilliant and I will give you props for that. The section about the relationship with the brain and the concept of self is a fantastic condensation of neuro-research as it applies to our sense of self. It challenges a lot of preconceptions, although I believe it still falls a bit short of Sam's conclusions from it. The science is still young and speculation is still high. But the intellectual challenge of deciding for myself what the research means to my views was fantastic and thought provoking. Finally I come to the part I disagree with Sam most on: his assumptions about the value of the altered states brought about through meditation. I like meditation and feel it has a personal value in small doses. I am less enthusiastic about the extreme form of immersion both Sam and I have gone through in different traditions. You have to be pretty far down your glass of Kool Aid to even want to subject yourself to that kind of exposure. It is both founded on assumptions, and also stokes the furnace of generating more of them. At best it is finding out what can happen to your mind under such extreme conditions, and at worst it is causing you to be altered in a way that is not good, but we don't even know all the implications of yet. Certainly the recommendation from the hoary past don't intellectually cut it for me. That
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more.
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. Yes you could. Try
Re: [FairfieldLife] My take on Waking Up by Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Curtis writes (in part): I figure I am as enlightened as I need to be to pursue my own goals and the self chosen purpose for my life. Hard to get me excited with promises of more inside. Whatever internal state I have seems to do the job nicely, the bigger task of my life is actualizing it in creative work out here. That requires eyes open. I couldn't agree more. Yes you could. Try Nope, like trying to force a poop, it just isn't working, Dan. For now, I agree as much as I possibly could but tomorrow is a new day and I've got the Charmin in good supply.
