Meditation that is Transcendental
willytex
Thread: Meditation that is Transcendental
Subject: Effectiveness and freedom from extraneous elements.
Author: Willytex
Updated: 07/15/03
"Meditation does not unfold the Self - the Self unfolds Itself,
by Itself, to Itself." (MMY 1967, VI, 5, P. 293)
The 'thought bubble' illustration has more in common with Patanjali's
Yoga Sutras than with the descriptions in the Vedas. The various
states of conciousness are proclaimed in Mandukya Upanishad and
explained very nicely in Mandukya Karika by Sri Gaudapada. A very
succint and thought-provoking book was written some years ago by
Anthony Campbell, a neurobiologist.
Anthony Campbell noted that "...this will not be surprising if one
remembers that the tendency to experience finer states of thought and
to transcend thought is innate; it is the very nature of the mind. Any
technique is thus likely to lead to transcending; indeed, people may
transcend without using any technique at all, and even against their
will."
The uniqueness of TM thus lies in its effectiveness and in its freedom
from extraneous elements. It is meditation's quintessence, the tantic
practice par excellence, much as zazen is the epitome of pure dhyana.
Success in meditation seems to occur when the mind tires at it's
attempts at concentrtion. When the mind 'lets go' and slips into finer
regions of thought, meditation has been successful.
Other techniques, at best, represent a roundabout way of achieving
what TM does directly and naturally. Of course, the phrase 'mind
control' begs the question of who is to do the controlling. It can
hardly be the Self, for the fundamental tenet of the Upanishads is
that the Self neither acts nor is acted upon; it is a witness only.'
In reality, the whole idea of control is based upon a misconception.
Meditation consists, not in trying to achieve something, but in
letting things take their course" according to Campbell (1074).
Source:
"The Seven States of Conciousness"
By Anthony Campbell, M.D.
(rare, out of print)
The Nebish Mamzer
willytex <will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f53f3a73.03071...@posting.google.com...
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: Meditation that is Transcendental
> Subject: Effectiveness and freedom from extraneous elements.
> Author: Willytex
> Updated: 07/15/03
>
> "Meditation does not unfold the Self - the Self unfolds Itself,
> by Itself, to Itself." (MMY 1967, VI, 5, P. 293)
Dear mr Willyplex this is totally stupid nonsense because I recently
attented a lectcher by a great spiritual master who came into the hall with
this beaming smiling look on his face (which he had obviusly practised in
front of a miror) sat down and right off said we were already enlightened so
I got up intending to leave thinking that was the end but noticed every body
else just kept sitting there so I sat back down. It reminds me of when I was
taking a airplane flight and we had to land becase of a malfuncton but after
they said the plane was fine it was just the malfuntion indicater that was
malfunctioning you see? there was nothing wrong wiht the plane. Its like
that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our dashboard keeps
coming on saying thers something wrong but its only something wronf with the
warning light . Thats what he said. and he gave an excersice where you try
real hard to imagine that the state your in right now and all your troubles
and discontent and horriblness will NEVER GO AWAY. And that this (what we
feel) is ALL THERE IS .MOst people think there must somehting differnet than
what there experienceing because before our whole trouble started we were
happy right? So why cant we get back to that. But we never seem to isn't is
so willyprix? But then actually w'ere already enlightened so then we have to
imagine that the state were in right now will STAY THIS WAY FOREVER even
with all our trouble because that IS enlightemend. His main point I think
was that there is'n't any enlightement because we'er already enlightned he
said we'er like an enlightened guy trying to get unenlightend which would be
impossibel and everyone agreed that what they had been trying to do so far
seemed totally impossible . I thing a lot of lights went on in that hall and
I don't meant the electric lights willypox. Some peopl were upset though but
the guy said it was good because they were now accpeting what befor they
were unable to accept namely themselves and all there troubels andd taking
responsabilaty and what they thouht enlighment was would be the avoidence of
the REAL ISSUE. To me it sounded like poor mans psycology but some liked it
and it made like way more sense than 'the self unfolds itself by itslef by
itslef' or that rubbish that you said no offence wittyplex because when does
the self do it? like never right? Or its alreddy done I mean. The wole issue
that we're avoiding which is bugging us every day is enlightnement. It made
more sense when he said it though.
Shmendrik
Judy Stein
> willytex <will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f53f3a73.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> > Thread: Meditation that is Transcendental
> > Subject: Effectiveness and freedom from extraneous elements.
> > Author: Willytex
> > Updated: 07/15/03
> >
> > "Meditation does not unfold the Self - the Self unfolds Itself,
> > by Itself, to Itself." (MMY 1967, VI, 5, P. 293)
>
> Dear mr Willyplex this is totally stupid nonsense because I recently
> attented a lectcher by a great spiritual master who came into the hall with
> this beaming smiling look on his face (which he had obviusly practised in
> front of a miror) sat down and right off said we were already enlightened so
> I got up intending to leave thinking that was the end but noticed every body
> else just kept sitting there so I sat back down. It reminds me of when I was
> taking a airplane flight and we had to land becase of a malfuncton but after
> they said the plane was fine it was just the malfuntion indicater that was
> malfunctioning you see? there was nothing wrong wiht the plane. Its like
> that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our dashboard keeps
> coming on saying thers something wrong but its only something wronf with the
> warning light .
Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
Uncle Tantra
>> > by Itself, to Itself." (MMY 1967, VI, 5, P. 293)
>>
>> Dear mr Willyplex this is totally stupid nonsense because I recently
>> attented a lectcher by a great spiritual master who came into the hall with
>> this beaming smiling look on his face (which he had obviusly practised in
>> front of a miror) sat down and right off said we were already enlightened
>so
>> I got up intending to leave thinking that was the end but noticed every
>body
>> else just kept sitting there so I sat back down. It reminds me of when I
>was
>> taking a airplane flight and we had to land becase of a malfuncton but
>after
>> they said the plane was fine it was just the malfuntion indicater that was
>> malfunctioning you see? there was nothing wrong wiht the plane. Its like
>> that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our dashboard keeps
>> coming on saying thers something wrong but its only something wronf with
>the
>> warning light .
>
>Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
In other words, Mel, it's just like Petrus'
"original sin" philosophy. You were born
broken, and only those who have completed
the appropriate manufacturer's training course
can fix it. For a price.
:-)
Unc
Judy Stein
> >> > "Meditation does not unfold the Self - the Self unfolds Itself,
> >> > by Itself, to Itself." (MMY 1967, VI, 5, P. 293)
> >>
> >> Dear mr Willyplex this is totally stupid nonsense because I recently
> >> attented a lectcher by a great spiritual master who came into the hall with
> >> this beaming smiling look on his face (which he had obviusly practised in
> >> front of a miror) sat down and right off said we were already enlightened
> so
> >> I got up intending to leave thinking that was the end but noticed every
> body
> >> else just kept sitting there so I sat back down. It reminds me of when I
> was
> >> taking a airplane flight and we had to land becase of a malfuncton but
> after
> >> they said the plane was fine it was just the malfuntion indicater that was
> >> malfunctioning you see? there was nothing wrong wiht the plane. Its like
> >> that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our dashboard keeps
> >> coming on saying thers something wrong but its only something wronf with
> the
> >> warning light .
> >
> >Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
>
> In other words, Mel,
(but not *my* other words)
BillyG.
"Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.03071...@posting.google.com...
One can go thru life looking at it from the perspective of the absolute,
unfortunately that is harldy the 'reality' of your maya bound life, until
one actually becomes Brahman can one say, "we're already enlightened"; that
is nonsense. "We live in a waking dream", C.Lutes. If all Brahman were to
suddenly fall in on Melvin, his body would go up in a cloud of dust....now
that's the reality!
>
The Nebish Mamzer
JWMeritt
>> > that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our dashboard
>keeps
>> > coming on saying thers something wrong but its only something wronf with
>the
>> > warning light .
>>
>> Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
>
>why?
Without a working indicator, how would you tell if something was wrong in the
future? Just because the plane was fine NOW does not mean that it will be fine
in 15 minutes. And in 15 minutes that may very well be a matter of life and
death. Else, why the expense and effort of having an indicator in the first
place?
James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA
Uncle Tantra
Why indeed? As I remember, given Shmendrick's tongue-in-cheek
retelling of an encounter with a teacher of the Ramana Maharshi
"we're always already enlightened and thus all we have to do is
realize it" school, the metaphor is that all "the expense and effort"
seems to have been expended just to create a "warning light" that
not only means nothing, it deludes the pilot into thinking that the
something is going on that is the opposite of what's really going on.
He's really enlightened, but because he believes the warning light,
he doesn't realize it.
So the problem would seem to be with whatever genius thought up
the whole "warning light" scenario in the first place. There was no
need for it. It's like installing a switch in the cockpit that says
"Airplane?" but which is always in the Off position, indicating "No."
:-) :-) :-)
Unc
BillyG.
"JWMeritt" <jwme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030718125231...@mb-m23.aol.com...
I totally agree with Meritt on this one, heck, we need our indicators!
BillyG CCX to the third power X2.
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:19b3c03e.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > "The Nebish Mamzer" <shme...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:<vhcdbce...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our dashboard
> > > keeps coming on saying thers something wrong but its only something
> > > wronf with the warning light
> >
>
> why?
Beeeeeecoz it says there's something wrong when there ain't.
You could also disable it, or have it removed.
The Nebish Mamzer
Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.03071...@posting.google.com...
> "The Nebish Mamzer" <shme...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:<vhg30n2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:19b3c03e.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > "The Nebish Mamzer" <shme...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:<vhcdbce...@corp.supernews.com>...
> <snip>
> > > > that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our
dashboard
> > > > keeps coming on saying thers something wrong but its only something
> > > > wronf with the warning light
> > >
> > > Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
> >
> > why?
>
> Beeeeeecoz it says there's something wrong when there ain't.
>
> You could also disable it, or have it removed.
The mere ideas: 'fix', 'disable' or 'remove' ensure that the warning light
stays on. It works so totally counter-intuitively that any and all
strategies to fix it, cause it to stay on. To do anything is to fail. To do
nothing is to fail.
Shmendrik
I was being chased through the jungle by a tiger. Finally I stopped running;
the tiger pounced; I felt the pain of its teeth and claws; the tiger and its
power and I are one.
Michael
> Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> > > Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
>> >
>> > why?
>>
>> Beeeeeecoz it says there's something wrong when there ain't.
>>
>> You could also disable it, or have it removed.
>
> The mere ideas: 'fix', 'disable' or 'remove' ensure that the warning light
> stays on. It works so totally counter-intuitively that any and all
> strategies to fix it, cause it to stay on. To do anything is to fail. To
> do nothing is to fail.
Judy, I think the 'warning light' here is a symbol of the mind not being
satisfied with what *is*. The /warning/ /light/ is constantly
stirring up the mind, and is therefore the real problem. The warning light
is an inbuilt tendency of the mind, to always want something, to actually
project the Self out into the future. To *fix* the warning light would not
really help, because its rather just adding to this mental tendency.
Wanting to fix itself is the real problem. But thats of course not so easy.
Michael
IOW we always want a remedy. The whole New Age is built on this, to get a
quick fix. But if someone says, there are no remedies, you will say, that
doesn't help me, I want a remedy. In this way, one stays in a loop.
Why not just try to live a normal life, and not get anywhere spiritually
specifically? I mean its okay, to meditate, and do all that, because its
relaxing and enjoyable. But as it is, we built a whole world of
expectations on it. We don't just simply live, no we are 'meditators',
'spiritual' etc. Just imagine you are enlightened, and there is nothing
left to do anymore. What would you do?
Uncle Tantra
>satisfied with what *is*. The /warning/ /light/ is constantly
>stirring up the mind, and is therefore the real problem. The warning light
>is an inbuilt tendency of the mind, to always want something, to actually
>project the Self out into the future. To *fix* the warning light would not
>really help, because its rather just adding to this mental tendency.
>Wanting to fix itself is the real problem. But thats of course not so easy.
Well said.
Judy Stein
> > > > > that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our
> > > > > dashboard keeps coming on saying thers something wrong but its
> > > > > only something wronf with the warning light
> > > >
> > > > Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
> > >
> > > why?
> >
> > Beeeeeecoz it says there's something wrong when there ain't.
> >
> > You could also disable it, or have it removed.
>
> The mere ideas: 'fix', 'disable' or 'remove' ensure that the warning light
> stays on. It works so totally counter-intuitively that any and all
> strategies to fix it, cause it to stay on. To do anything is to fail. To do
> nothing is to fail.
I thought you said you landed safely...
Uncle Tantra
>quick fix. But if someone says, there are no remedies, you will say, that
>doesn't help me, I want a remedy. In this way, one stays in a loop.
Exactly. It is the *belief* that we are
broken that keeps us broken. As the
singer Jewel says, "We were never
broken."
>Why not just try to live a normal life, and not get anywhere spiritually
>specifically?
Because the vast majority of humanity is
supremely uncomfortable with the concept
of Now. Their "best moments" are either
behind them, in the past, or ahead of them,
in the future. Now is a place where one
dreams of "things better." One doesn't
actually *live* there. Unless one is one of
the rare few who does, that is. And then
no one believes you. They take your
words about Now and turn them into a
dream of the future, a dream that could
actually come true, if only...
If only I didn't have all this stress. If only I
weren't burdened by this ego. If only I hadn't
been brainwashed by _____. If only I had
been able to attend _____ course. If only.
Those who have historically been able to
live in the Now are those who gave up "If
only." Those who *really* want to avoid
living in the Now come up with all sorts of
models about why they could do so if it
weren't for "If only..."
>I mean its okay, to meditate, and do all that, because its
>relaxing and enjoyable. But as it is, we built a whole world of
>expectations on it. We don't just simply live, no we are 'meditators',
>'spiritual' etc. Just imagine you are enlightened, and there is nothing
>left to do anymore. What would you do?
Exactly again. What would you DO if you
no longer had a goal? I think it is safe to
say that in a spiritual context attachment
to the goal of enlightenment sometime in
the future is the surest method of never
attaining it in the present...
Unc
Judy Stein
> The Nebish Mamzer wrote:
>
> > Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > > Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
> >> >
> >> > why?
> >>
> >> Beeeeeecoz it says there's something wrong when there ain't.
> >>
> >> You could also disable it, or have it removed.
> >
> > The mere ideas: 'fix', 'disable' or 'remove' ensure that the warning light
> > stays on. It works so totally counter-intuitively that any and all
> > strategies to fix it, cause it to stay on. To do anything is to fail. To
> > do nothing is to fail.
>
> Judy, I think the 'warning light' here is a symbol of the mind not being
> satisfied with what *is*. The /warning/ /light/ is constantly
> stirring up the mind, and is therefore the real problem. The warning light
> is an inbuilt tendency of the mind, to always want something, to actually
> project the Self out into the future.
Yes, that's how I understood it.
To *fix* the warning light would not
> really help, because its rather just adding to this mental tendency.
"Fixing" it, in this context, would mean the light would go off and
stay off, since there's nothing wrong for it to be warning about.
In effect, fixing it would be the same as disabling or removing it.
Seems to me that's the same as using a thorn to remove a thorn.
> Wanting to fix itself is the real problem.
Right. But that just moves the problem back a level. Something
IS wrong; saying it's a malfunctioning warning light rather than
something wrong with the airplane doesn't remove the problem.
In the analogy, the problem was solved by realizing that the
warning light was broken and that there was nothing wrong with
the plane, so the light could be ignored.
How was that realization accomplished?
Again, ignoring the warning light amounts to disabling it,
although in this case what is "disabled" is the mind's *reaction*
to the warning light. Instead of turning the warning light
off, you turn off the mind's response to it.
Somewhere along the line, something changes, no matter how
you slice it.
Melvin says, "It works so totally counter-intuitively that any and all
strategies to fix it, cause it to stay on. To do anything is to fail. To
do nothing is to fail."
Yet he landed safely.
> But thats of course not so easy.
No, and it's made even more difficult by transferring the
problem from the malfunction of the warning light to the
mind's assumption that the warning light is functioning
properly, because that's an infinite regress.
Judy Stein
Seems to me that just compounds the situation. You're going
about your life with this big thorn in your side, pretending
it's not there. That sounds like making a mood of not trying
to get anywhere spiritually. "Just simply living" and "imagining
you are enlightened" are most definitely "doing something."
I'm not advocating "getting somewhere" spiritually. I *do*
advocate transcending regularly, because transcending takes
you *out* of the loop on the basis of not-doing and gradually
loosens it until there's nothing left to be caught in.
Judy Stein
> >IOW we always want a remedy. The whole New Age is built on this, to get a
> >quick fix. But if someone says, there are no remedies, you will say, that
> >doesn't help me, I want a remedy. In this way, one stays in a loop.
>
> Exactly. It is the *belief* that we are
> broken that keeps us broken. As the
> singer Jewel says, "We were never
> broken."
If only it were just a belief...
I don't think the "belief" and "imagine" terminology
is helpful because it's too likely to be taken literally
rather than metaphorically.
What keeps us broken is our *experience* that we are
broken. It's nice to be assured that we were never
broken, but it doesn't (for most of us) change our
experience.
I *believe*, devoutly--in the literal sense--that I was
never broken. But that belief in and of itself does not
allow me to experience my unbrokenness.
Why do I believe I was never broken? Because (a) a lot of
very heavy-duty dudes (Michael included) have insisted that
is the case; and (b) because I do experience my always-already
unbrokenness in meditation, and occasionally outside meditation.
But when I'm not having that experience, that I was never
broken goes back to being just a belief.
Lawson English
"Michael" <han...@telda.net> wrote in message
news:3106752.5Z0vrB7xva@umatrix.de...
Its the easiest thing in the world...
--
New definition of irony:
'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.
mhutchinson
Ramana Maharshi would say ; Who wants the remedy? Find that out. The
Self is the only eternal thing, intellect, body, everything drops away
except for the light of the Self, which is Brahman, without it's
"light" there is no experience, no question, no longing. It's not
that "enlightenment" needs to be gained, the Self is always there,
it's the ignorance that has to be removed. Can you tell I'm reading
"Talks with Ramana Maharshi" now?
The Nebish Mamzer
I'm not sure what you're getting at. So I'll just say that success means
giving up on the idea of succeeding.
Shmendrik
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:19b3c03e.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > "The Nebish Mamzer" <shme...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:<vhhkf97...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > > news:19b3c03e.03071...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> > > > > > > that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our
> > > > > > > dashboard keeps coming on saying thers something wrong but its
> > > > > > > only something wronf with the warning light
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right, Melvin, but you have to *fix* the warning light.
> > > > >
> > > > > why?
> > > >
> > > > Beeeeeecoz it says there's something wrong when there ain't.
> > > >
> > > > You could also disable it, or have it removed.
> > >
> > > The mere ideas: 'fix', 'disable' or 'remove' ensure that the warning
> > > light stays on. It works so totally counter-intuitively that any and all
> > > strategies to fix it, cause it to stay on. To do anything is to fail. To
> > > do nothing is to fail.
> >
> > I thought you said you landed safely...
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. So I'll just say that success means
> giving up on the idea of succeeding.
But that isn't what the folks on the airplane in your analogy did.
They ignored the warning light, having realized that it was
malfunctioning. That's the same as disabling it, except that what
they "disabled" was their own response to the warning light.
The Nebish Mamzer
> But that isn't what the folks on the airplane in your analogy did.
> They ignored the warning light, having realized that it was
> malfunctioning. That's the same as disabling it, except that what
> they "disabled" was their own response to the warning light.
Yeah, in the analogy that happened. But remember that the people in the
airplane are separate entities from the warning light and the plane. They
can be objective with regard to the warning light and the plane. There are
trained technicians that know all about planes whose word we accept. But
when it comes to you and me, the warning light, my response and myself are
all intimately bound together; they are all part and parcel of me. I cannot
declare there is nothing wrong with me when the warning light is on. I
cannot be objective and ignore the warning light. It's being on distresses
me. Those who we believe are trained technicians of the mind have told us
that there is nothing wrong with us, but we say 'but I have to realize that
for myself experientially' and so we continue to act as if there is
something that needs fixing, waiting for the 'all-clear' signal to fall out
of the sky. What we really mean is we want our distress to go away. We can't
accept that the warning light being on is included in our 'nothing
wrongness'.
Shmendrik
Judy Stein
Well, then, we need to accept it, don't we? And accepting our
distress is still the same, in effect, as disabling the warning
light.
My point is that one way or another, *something changes*. You
can define that change any way you like, move it back level after
level in an infinite regress, but it can't be defined out of
existence.
Michael
>> IOW we always want a remedy. The whole New Age is built on this, to get a
>> quick fix. But if someone says, there are no remedies, you will say, that
>> doesn't help me, I want a remedy. In this way, one stays in a loop.
>> Why not just try to live a normal life, and not get anywhere spiritually
>> specifically? I mean its okay, to meditate, and do all that, because its
>> relaxing and enjoyable. But as it is, we built a whole world of
>> expectations on it. We don't just simply live, no we are 'meditators',
>> 'spiritual' etc. Just imagine you are enlightened, and there is nothing
>> left to do anymore. What would you do?
>
> Seems to me that just compounds the situation. You're going
> about your life with this big thorn in your side, pretending
> it's not there.
See, thats not what I am saying. Lets say, you have tried all remedies, but
find you are still not there, what are you going to do? Stand on your head?
So, all I say is to relax about the situation a bit.
> That sounds like making a mood of not trying
> to get anywhere spiritually. "Just simply living" and "imagining
> you are enlightened" are most definitely "doing something."
Judy, this is unfair arguing. I am not giving the advice to 'imagine you are
enlightened' as an exercise. I only use it as a thought in discussion. I
thought this was clear! You can very well anticipate of a situation, where
your desires are fulfilled in that direction, and you are left with a sort
of vacuum. This is in fact very logical and can be understood by everyone.
Living simply, means only to live without pretense. It must be possible to
think things through once in a while. I use this for a means of
self-reflection in the discussion here, not as a sort of 'technique' or
mood-making. Yet this is what you accuse me to do.
>
> I'm not advocating "getting somewhere" spiritually. I *do*
> advocate transcending regularly, because transcending takes
> you *out* of the loop on the basis of not-doing and gradually
> loosens it until there's nothing left to be caught in.
Thats alright. I recommend the same. But here, Judy, you indeed look a bit
dogmatic. Why not have a thought on top of that, an intelectual reflection
at this very moment, not a technique to be practised. Why do I always run
into difficulties with you folks when I make such a reflection? Is it
impossible to conceive of something that is not a technique, and has no
special purpose? What I said has no special purpose. Its absolutely useless
;-)
Uncle Tantra
>into difficulties with you folks when I make such a reflection?
I know this was a rhetorical question, but
I'll give you my theory. It's because you're
speaking from a platform of experience,
and they're speaking from one of only
theory. From the point of view of theory,
there are only techniques to achieve what
has never been an extended reality, not the
"lila" of playing with concepts that one *knows*
are inadequate just for the fun of it. Personally,
I think you do that quite well.
Unc
Michael
>>Why do I always run
>>into difficulties with you folks when I make such a reflection?
>
> I know this was a rhetorical question, but
> I'll give you my theory. It's because you're
> speaking from a platform of experience,
> and they're speaking from one of only
> theory.
I wouldn't say it like this. They, Judy and others have also their
experiences. I'm not looking down on them. I have others, and I find you
are most right, with the 'surprise' element, at least in my experience.
What I have got, is most unlike anything else I had experienced up to this
moment. Unlike the 'transcendence' I had experienced before. Indeed, it is
so different, that there seems to be no connection to anything that was
going on before. And yet I know, that it was all the years of meditation,
that really helped. After I came here, I met an American, who was just on
the verge to it. He had been practising 7 years of Zen meditation in S.F.
with a japanese master, but without having any special experiences. He was
somehow let to Mother Meera, and started to feel more. He was my room
neighbor, so it was inevitable that we spoke about our experiences. He
said, that he felt some pain or pressure, right at the top of the head. I
told him not to dismiss it, and what my own experience was. He asked me for
some advice, and I told him some things that had helped me in this. Within
two or three month, he had the same thing as I had. I heard that when he
went back to the US, while waiting for the bus, he had all his chakras
'explode'. Why I tell this? Because I think, that the 7 years of Zen had
prepared him for this to happen. Actually, according to his own admission,
he had almost zero experiences. But the practise was like the arrow being
drawn back by the archer: the momentum was gained. It was not important,
that he had any experiences before. So I think, it doesn't really matter,
if one has a lot of experiences or not. When one is ready, any moment of
grace, will just trigger enlightenment. Somehow, I do not believe in
gradual enlightement, in enlightenment in bits and pieces, but I do believe
in preperation.
When I had to leave Purusha, there was a guy, who had to tell me the bad
news, that I was dismissed. I just had had the most wonderful
transformations, and when we talked, he said, that for him everything is
just getting more and more abstract, no phantastic experiences. I remember
that I sort of pitied him. This guy is french and his Nick name was Pappy.
About six years ago, he came here! (I mean he was on the Purusha board,
dismissing me because I saw Mother Meera). A friend told me that he is now
in Unity Consciousness. He now lives in Paris. He doesn't make a big show
about his enlightenment, but there are some people around him, and he talks
about his experience. Now, that is what I mean, he was such a gray mouse,
but he was very one-pointed. Well, if you want, I email you his name, as
you are in Paris, but I don't really know if he's still there. I hear
people pop up like this in the movement at different places. I have a
friend from Skelmersdale, who tells me about his old friend suddenly
slipping into Unity.(He obviously lives in London). I wouldn't be
surprised, if Judy would be the next, but then again she also might not be,
who knows ;-)
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein wrote:
>
> >> IOW we always want a remedy. The whole New Age is built on this, to get a
> >> quick fix. But if someone says, there are no remedies, you will say, that
> >> doesn't help me, I want a remedy. In this way, one stays in a loop.
> >> Why not just try to live a normal life, and not get anywhere spiritually
> >> specifically? I mean its okay, to meditate, and do all that, because its
> >> relaxing and enjoyable. But as it is, we built a whole world of
> >> expectations on it. We don't just simply live, no we are 'meditators',
> >> 'spiritual' etc. Just imagine you are enlightened, and there is nothing
> >> left to do anymore. What would you do?
> >
> > Seems to me that just compounds the situation. You're going
> > about your life with this big thorn in your side, pretending
> > it's not there.
>
> See, thats not what I am saying. Lets say, you have tried all remedies, but
> find you are still not there, what are you going to do? Stand on your head?
> So, all I say is to relax about the situation a bit.
I see what you're saying now; I didn't before, sorry. You're
not proposing "imagine you're enlightened" as a means, but
rather as a thought experiment: think about what it would be
like to be enlightened with nothing left to do any more to
gain it; and then just live like that even though you're still
not enlightened. Is that what you're saying?
But I'm still not sure I understand the point. I don't feel
un-relaxed about it! I enjoy yakking with folks about it, but
that doesn't mean I sit around and worry about it, and I don't
have the impression others here do either.
> > That sounds like making a mood of not trying
> > to get anywhere spiritually. "Just simply living" and "imagining
> > you are enlightened" are most definitely "doing something."
>
> Judy, this is unfair arguing. I am not giving the advice to 'imagine you are
> enlightened' as an exercise. I only use it as a thought in discussion.
> I thought this was clear!
It's clear now, it wasn't before.
You can very well anticipate of a situation, where
> your desires are fulfilled in that direction, and you are left with a sort
> of vacuum. This is in fact very logical and can be understood by everyone.
Why would it be a vacuum? I still don't understand this.
That's what often happens in the relative, when a desire is
fulfilled after a long struggle. At first you're euphoric,
but in short order you start looking around for something
else to achieve.
But that, I would think, is because all desires for things in
the external world are really a sort of substitute for inner
fulfillment, so they are never satisfied by obtaining the
external object; there's *always* a vacuum.
On the other hand, if you mean that once you achieve internal
fulfillment, for a time the mind/ego may feel cheated because
its constant striving has become pointless, *that* I can
understand; I just described in another thread an experience
I had like that while resting one day after program.
But that doesn't seem to fit in the present context, so I'm
confused!
> Living simply, means only to live without pretense. It must be possible to
> think things through once in a while. I use this for a means of
> self-reflection in the discussion here, not as a sort of 'technique' or
> mood-making. Yet this is what you accuse me to do.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I wasn't "accusing" you so much as
saying what it sounded like to me in the hope that you'd explain
yourself further.
> > I'm not advocating "getting somewhere" spiritually. I *do*
> > advocate transcending regularly, because transcending takes
> > you *out* of the loop on the basis of not-doing and gradually
> > loosens it until there's nothing left to be caught in.
>
> Thats alright. I recommend the same. But here, Judy, you indeed look a bit
> dogmatic. Why not have a thought on top of that, an intelectual reflection
> at this very moment, not a technique to be practised.
No problem with that. I thought you were proposing it as a
technique.
Why do I always run
> into difficulties with you folks when I make such a reflection? Is it
> impossible to conceive of something that is not a technique, and has no
> special purpose? What I said has no special purpose. Its absolutely useless
> ;-)
I guess my basic disagreement with you here is that I'm not sure
it matters how you think about enlightenment before you get there,
as long as you're practicing an effective technique. Seems to me
an effective technique will whittle away the tendency to have
specific expectations and make conditions and measurements of
progress and so on, because all those are just reflections of
stress, in TM terms. Even the tendency to mood-making will
dissolve eventually.
If one has expectations, one has expectations. If one wants a
remedy, one wants a remedy. If one is told having expectations
or wanting a remedy is a Bad Thing, one may feel tempted to
suppress or deny it, which would also be a Bad Thing. Better
just to relax about having the expectations or wanting the remedy;
don't dwell on it or indulge yourself in it, just let it be there
and trust that it'll go away by itself as transcending releases
the stress that gives rise to it in the first place.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> friend from Skelmersdale, who tells me about his old friend suddenly
> slipping into Unity.(He obviously lives in London). I wouldn't be
> surprised, if Judy would be the next
Don't scare me!
>, but then again she also might not be, who knows ;-)
<whew>
Michael
Judy Stein wrote:
> think about what it would be
> like to be enlightened with nothing left to do any more to
> gain it; and then just live like that even though you're still
> not enlightened. Is that what you're saying?
Not 'to live like that' as you would say it, is mood making. No, I'm just
making that thought-experiment, as a means to become intellectually aware
of the situation. Any conclusion you will draw yourself - if you feel there
is a conclusion. My main point is to be aware of that situation.
> I don't feel
> un-relaxed about it! I enjoy yakking with folks about it, but
> that doesn't mean I sit around and worry about it
Right, that's okay. So we all do. ;-) I'm not /advicing/ to do anything, or
so.
<snip>
> Why would it be a vacuum? I still don't understand this.
> That's what often happens in the relative, when a desire is
> fulfilled after a long struggle. At first you're euphoric,
> but in short order you start looking around for something
> else to achieve.
>
> But that, I would think, is because all desires for things in
> the external world are really a sort of substitute for inner
> fulfillment, so they are never satisfied by obtaining the
> external object; there's *always* a vacuum.
Yes, but in ordinary life, you don't feel that vacuum, because you have
filled it with thoughts, plans etc. The substitutes work very well. In
enlightenment you will feel the vacuum, because you suddenly become aware
of the basic *emptiness* of everything. Things are devoid of content, as the
Buddhists say. In CC not everything is necessarily bliss. There is a
fundamental separation between the world and the Self, which is felt as a
vacuum. The vacuum also is felt because of the life-long *habbit* of the
mind, of being occupied with one thing or the other. Enlightenment is not
what you expect it to be, it's different. There is a sense of strangeness
about it. I would say, that the sense of vacuum comes from this contrast of
the old mind, and the simultaneus experience of the Self.
> On the other hand, if you mean that once you achieve internal
> fulfillment, for a time the mind/ego may feel cheated because
> its constant striving has become pointless,
<snip>
> I guess my basic disagreement with you here is that I'm not sure
> it matters how you think about enlightenment before you get there,
> as long as you're practicing an effective technique.
Thats right, here we differ. I am not saying, that one should try to root
out expectations, or concepts, because it would be unrealistic to do so.
But what is possible, is to become aware of the situation, as we go along
discussing. You should also bear in mind, that all of the concepts
regarding enlightenment are *acquired,* they were concepts usefull when you
started on the way, because they suited your particular mindset at that
time. But as you moved along, they become part of the minds ideation, they
got kind of fixed, something the mind leans on. I agree with you, that they
would be outrooted, when you transcend deeply enough. Especially if you
would happen to reflect about them after a deep enlightenment experience. I
may also remind you of Maharishis emphasis on *knowledge*. Maharishi always
says 'knowledge *and* experience', which means, it is faster than just
experiencing. Because after the experience part of the mind will go back
like a spring, i.e. it will just reassert it's old way of thinking.
> Seems to me
> an effective technique will whittle away the tendency to have
> specific expectations and make conditions and measurements of
> progress and so on, because all those are just reflections of
> stress, in TM terms.
Yes, but being aware of those concepts at a time of deep transcendence could
hasten it; This would be naturally the case, if you already had made a good
deal of such reflections - like the ones we are doing here - in the past.
And of course, a belief that is acquired, is not a God given belief. So
there is no absolute necessity to have it, you understand?
Even the tendency to mood-making will
> dissolve eventually.
Haha.
>
> If one has expectations, one has expectations.
Yes and no. Expectations can be easily triggert. If I tell you, that a
certain pill will give you hallizunations, you will come to expect them. If
you don't get them, but sort of the pill is sweet, and I tell you that you
will get them later on, this expectation will become part of your life. Or
lets say, I tell you that you will be confronted on the Judgment Day with
Lord Jesus, and you believe it, it will be part of your expectation, and
because of the long *investment* in this belief, you won't let it go easily.
It became part of your identity.
So, I think it is quite clear, that one can very well live without this
particular expectation. But that doesn't mean of course, that you can live
without any expectation in general. That's where the real problem lies. But
I am not saying that there is anything in particular to do about it. Any
effort would just mean more doing, more trying to get anywhere. But I do
think that it matters, what you believe, and especially how much you invest
in your beliefs, i.e. how much those beliefs determine your basic identity.
I basically believe that knowledge like this here, will serve like seeds.
There is no way to act upon it right now, but 'when the time is ripe', i.e.
when the appropriate experience comes, these seeds will sprout in the
subconscious.
> If one wants a
> remedy, one wants a remedy. If one is told having expectations
> or wanting a remedy is a Bad Thing, one may feel tempted to
> suppress or deny it, which would also be a Bad Thing.
Right, it would be counterproductive.
> Better
> just to relax about having the expectations or wanting the remedy;
> don't dwell on it or indulge yourself in it, just let it be there
> and trust that it'll go away by itself as transcending releases
> the stress that gives rise to it in the first place.
Right, but it's good, because you are aware of the basic situation. I
like the word 'trust' here. But I still think that the idea, that there is a
certain mountain of stress to be carried away, unhelpful. I would rather
think, its better to be ready for the *unexpected* at any moment, and think
its a matter of grace, or something similar.(like the fancy of the
universe, the mystery of the Tao or whatever), and do meditation for its
own sake, for the enjoyment you receive through it.
For example, you could believe, that *stresses* can also go through
*knowledge*,as knowledge is, according to the Gita, the greatest purifier.
Uncle Tantra
>I may also remind you of Maharishis emphasis on *knowledge*. Maharishi always
>says 'knowledge *and* experience', which means, it is faster than just
>experiencing. Because after the experience part of the mind will go back
>like a spring, i.e. it will just reassert it's old way of thinking.
For normal experiences, I might agree with
you, Michael, about the mind reasserting its
old way of thinking. But there is another
class of experience in which the mind is IMO
unable to do so, even when it tries.
Certainly a profound, protracted experience
of samadhi would fall into that category. I
have actually met people who had such an
experience, but then became disenchanted
with the group they were part of, got into the
"anti-cult thang," and tried their best to
convince themselves that the experience
of samadhi had never happened, that it
was an illusion, or something they were
"hypnotized" into believing. And for a while
they were successful. But I met a couple
of them again recently, and they now admit
that, no matter what they tried to believe
*about* the experience, the experience itself
won out in the long run.
Other experiences I would place in this
category would be firsthand witnessing of
the siddhis. Things like invisibility, true
levitation (sitting or walking on air for long
periods of time), etc. I worked with a guy
who did that stuff. Big whoop. I knew then
and I know now that the ability to do these
things has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether one is enlightened or not. But
witnessing these phenomena is a real hoot,
and much, much more.
First, as far as I can tell you aren't just
witnessing, you're participating. It's impos-
sible to sit in the presence of such phenom-
ena without having your state of attention
shift to that state of attention that makes
those phenomena possible.
Second, witnessing such things, that
aren't supposed to be able to happen, has
the benefit of fucking with your mind, big-
time. :-) Really. The official term for it is
cognitive dissonance. You're sitting in the
desert and some guy comes up and stands
in front of you, no more than two feet away,
and then he just disappears. You can see
stars through the hazy outline of his body,
and then even the outline disappears. You
don't really believe it's happening, so you
lean your head back and forth and shift
positions to see if the foreground and
background you can see "through him" or
where he was standing shift perspective as
they should. They do. Then he "comes
back," smiles big-time, and walks off.
It fucks with your mind. No matter how
much you tell yourself you believe such
things are possible, no matter how much
you *think* you believe they're possible,
you never really learn how much of your-
self is still invested in them *not* being
possible until you witness one of them
personally. You basically freak out for
a few days. Your whole world is askew,
no matter how prepared you convinced
yourself that you were for the experience.
Nothing really prepares one for an experience
like that. So you spend some time freaking
out. And later, you even try to find ways to
explain it away, to convince yourself that
it never really happened. But you can't.
Because you were there, you saw it happen,
you *felt* it happen, and just like a strong
experience of samadhi, that subjective
experience is now part of you, and a stronger
part than the tendency or the ability of the
mind to "wish it away."
And believe me, part of you wants to wish
it away. One of the reasons why I still have
a fondness for the works of Carlos Castaneda,
even though I know that much of his later
writing was at best borrowed, at worst
fiction, is that he just *nailed* this exper-
ience perfectly. In the early books he'd be
out in the desert with don Juan and see
something extraordinary. And then Carlos
would relate, with what I think is remarkable
honesty, what happened after that. He
would freak out. He would try any trick he
could imagine to explain away or make go
away the things that part of him didn't want
to have experienced. That's it. That just
nails it.
But it's a futile gesture, the last gasp and
struggles of a part of you dying. It cannot
continue to assert itself, no matter how
hard it tries, because the memory of the
experience itself is more powerful. The
mind whimpers, it freaks out, and it tries
to make the experience go away. But the
experience wins.
Unc
Judy Stein
> This was a post I wanted to answer, but couldn't find it easily. Here it is:
>
> Judy Stein wrote:
>
> > think about what it would be
> > like to be enlightened with nothing left to do any more to
> > gain it; and then just live like that even though you're still
> > not enlightened. Is that what you're saying?
>
> Not 'to live like that' as you would say it, is mood making. No, I'm just
> making that thought-experiment, as a means to become intellectually aware
> of the situation. Any conclusion you will draw yourself - if you feel there
> is a conclusion. My main point is to be aware of that situation.
OK.
> > Why would it be a vacuum? I still don't understand this.
> > That's what often happens in the relative, when a desire is
> > fulfilled after a long struggle. At first you're euphoric,
> > but in short order you start looking around for something
> > else to achieve.
> >
> > But that, I would think, is because all desires for things in
> > the external world are really a sort of substitute for inner
> > fulfillment, so they are never satisfied by obtaining the
> > external object; there's *always* a vacuum.
>
> Yes, but in ordinary life, you don't feel that vacuum, because you have
> filled it with thoughts, plans etc. The substitutes work very well. In
> enlightenment you will feel the vacuum, because you suddenly become aware
> of the basic *emptiness* of everything. Things are devoid of content, as the
> Buddhists say. In CC not everything is necessarily bliss. There is a
> fundamental separation between the world and the Self, which is felt as a
> vacuum. The vacuum also is felt because of the life-long *habbit* of the
> mind, of being occupied with one thing or the other. Enlightenment is not
> what you expect it to be, it's different. There is a sense of strangeness
> about it. I would say, that the sense of vacuum comes from this contrast of
> the old mind, and the simultaneus experience of the Self.
That sounds *very* much like the experience I was referring to that
I had once for a few minutes during rest after program, and that's
just how I interpreted it afterwards.
However, I also had a sense--very vague and abstract--of what it would
be like once the grip of the habits of the old mind began to diminish.
I would assume, in other words, that the sense of vacuum wouldn't
last forever in the face of the uninterrupted experience of the Self.
> > I guess my basic disagreement with you here is that I'm not sure
> > it matters how you think about enlightenment before you get there,
> > as long as you're practicing an effective technique.
>
> Thats right, here we differ. I am not saying, that one should try to root
> out expectations, or concepts, because it would be unrealistic to do so.
> But what is possible, is to become aware of the situation, as we go along
> discussing.
OK, I'll buy that.
You should also bear in mind, that all of the concepts
> regarding enlightenment are *acquired,* they were concepts usefull when you
> started on the way, because they suited your particular mindset at that
> time. But as you moved along, they become part of the minds ideation, they
> got kind of fixed, something the mind leans on.
Or not. My experience is that the concepts are becoming progressively
more vague and abstract over time, less and less firm, less able to
be leaned on. I'd still use the same words to describe them, but
the words don't mean the same thing to me, or at least not anywhere
near as concretely as I used to understand them. They're loosening
up somehow.
<snip>
> > Seems to me
> > an effective technique will whittle away the tendency to have
> > specific expectations and make conditions and measurements of
> > progress and so on, because all those are just reflections of
> > stress, in TM terms.
>
> Yes, but being aware of those concepts at a time of deep transcendence could
> hasten it; This would be naturally the case, if you already had made a good
> deal of such reflections - like the ones we are doing here - in the past.
> And of course, a belief that is acquired, is not a God given belief. So
> there is no absolute necessity to have it, you understand?
Sure.
> Even the tendency to mood-making will
> > dissolve eventually.
>
> Haha.
No?
<snip>
> So, I think it is quite clear, that one can very well live without this
> particular expectation. But that doesn't mean of course, that you can live
> without any expectation in general. That's where the real problem lies. But
> I am not saying that there is anything in particular to do about it. Any
> effort would just mean more doing, more trying to get anywhere. But I do
> think that it matters, what you believe, and especially how much you invest
> in your beliefs, i.e. how much those beliefs determine your basic identity.
> I basically believe that knowledge like this here, will serve like seeds.
> There is no way to act upon it right now, but 'when the time is ripe', i.e.
> when the appropriate experience comes, these seeds will sprout in the
> subconscious.
OK. I do think it's important to make these sorts of caveats
("There is no way to act upon it right now") very, very clearly
when this is being discussed so they're not interpreted as
Things To Be Done.
MMY had a list of "behavioral rasayanas" at one time, which read
like a list of instructions as to what to do and what not to do,
attitudes to have, ways to deal with other people, and so on--
basically ethical precepts. I found those very offputting because
I had always understood MMY to teach that the "yamas and niyamas"
developed spontaneously as a result of transcending, not as a result
of intentional effort.
A TM teacher responded by telling me MMY had said simply to
read the list over every now and then to keep the precepts
"lively in the mind," but not to strain to *follow* them.
That made sense to me, and it sounds a bit like what you're
saying above.
<snip>
> > Better
> > just to relax about having the expectations or wanting the remedy;
> > don't dwell on it or indulge yourself in it, just let it be there
> > and trust that it'll go away by itself as transcending releases
> > the stress that gives rise to it in the first place.
>
> Right, but it's good, because you are aware of the basic situation. I
> like the word 'trust' here. But I still think that the idea, that there is a
> certain mountain of stress to be carried away, unhelpful. I would rather
> think, its better to be ready for the *unexpected* at any moment, and think
> its a matter of grace, or something similar.(like the fancy of the
> universe, the mystery of the Tao or whatever), and do meditation for its
> own sake, for the enjoyment you receive through it.
Mmmm...maybe. But the mind doesn't like mysteries. If I'm not
being accorded grace *right now*, there has to be some reason for
it, inscrutable though it may be. "Stress" is as good a label to
put on that reason as any. Otherwise you may find yourself thinking
you don't *deserve* grace, and that can be destructive. Stress,
you can't help. But you don't have to visualize it as a "mountain";
you shouldn't have a sense of some huge amount that has to be gone
through. So being ready for the unexpected is great. That last
little bit of stress could dissolve at any instant.
On the other hand, if you're doing meditation only for its own sake,
for the enjoyment of it, what about when you're going through a
period where it's very "noisy" and not a whole lot of fun? Seems
to me "stress" is a useful concept in that situation as well.
> For example, you could believe, that *stresses* can also go through
> *knowledge*,as knowledge is, according to the Gita, the greatest purifier.
But is that manas-knowledge, or Buddhi-knowledge?
Judy Stein
<snip>
> It fucks with your mind. No matter how
> much you tell yourself you believe such
> things are possible, no matter how much
> you *think* you believe they're possible,
> you never really learn how much of your-
> self is still invested in them *not* being
> possible until you witness one of them
> personally. You basically freak out for
> a few days. Your whole world is askew,
> no matter how prepared you convinced
> yourself that you were for the experience.
I've never witnessed anything like this, but I've thought
for some time that if I ever saw anybody really hovering
during program, it would not be a positive experience at
all. (Might be different if *I* were the one hovering;
I'm not sure.)
I've also wondered whether the fact that TMers are not
levitating has to do with just what you said about
thinking you believe siddhis are possible while being
unconsciously deeply invested in their *not* being
possible. Maybe that investment has to let go before
siddhis can take place.
I've further speculated that if MMY can levitate, he
refrains from demonstrating it at least partly because
it would be such a devastating psychic shock to so many
people. TMers might get over it relatively quickly,
but those who not only unconsciously but *consciously*
believe siddhis are impossible might end up in a really
bad way.
> Nothing really prepares one for an experience
> like that. So you spend some time freaking
> out. And later, you even try to find ways to
> explain it away, to convince yourself that
> it never really happened. But you can't.
> Because you were there, you saw it happen
This isn't same thing, but in the past on two
different occasions I have had two very striking
UFO sightings (at a "safe" distance, not close
encounters). Both times my *first* reaction
was denial, and my second reaction was fear and a
strong sense of disorientation.
I worked very hard to explain them away and couldn't.
Then for a while it felt like I had accepted what
I'd seen as reality. But now, some years later, although
I remember the two experiences vividly, they've lost much
of their reality, as if deep down that unconscious
disbelief has had a chance to regroup and take hold again.
> you *felt* it happen, and just like a strong
> experience of samadhi, that subjective
> experience is now part of you, and a stronger
> part than the tendency or the ability of the
> mind to "wish it away."
With the UFO sightings, that isn't the case for me.
But it is a much different type of experience, the
only common element being the "impossibility"
quotient. There's no "felt," subjective element
to that kind of UFO sighting.
Uncle Tantra
with Judy here because, so far, this one's not an argument,
it's a fairly respectful conversation. :-)
Unc:
>> It fucks with your mind. No matter how
>> much you tell yourself you believe such
>> things are possible, no matter how much
>> you *think* you believe they're possible,
>> you never really learn how much of your-
>> self is still invested in them *not* being
>> possible until you witness one of them
>> personally. You basically freak out for
>> a few days. Your whole world is askew,
>> no matter how prepared you convinced
>> yourself that you were for the experience.
Judy:
>I've never witnessed anything like this, but I've thought
>for some time that if I ever saw anybody really hovering
>during program, it would not be a positive experience at
>all. (Might be different if *I* were the one hovering;
>I'm not sure.)
Oh, I think it's a positive experience, if irrelevant
(because it's not like there are a lot of people around
who can do these things). When I say that witnessing
these things "fucks with your mind," that's just my
dharma-bum way of relating what I think is a *good*
experience. :-)
What it fucks with is your mind's concepts of How
Things Work. The concepts are never *really* How
Things Work, they are just the ways that all of our
conditioning, since we were infants (and probably
before) have convinced us they work. So when you
see something that violates all the "rules" you have
established in your mind for How Things Work, your
mind freaks out for a little while. It goes into a 3 to 4
day period of profound cognitive dissonance. Rama
used to refer to the experiences we had with him in
the desert as "dissolving the glue that holds your being
together." For a few days you were *fluid*, not static.
You weren't quite sure which way was up, which down.
It was as if your habit patterns and regular ways of
seeing things and doing things *had* been dissolved.
Yes, there was a *tendency* to want to do the same
old things and think the same old ways, but you could
tell that it wasn't working. Those ways of thinking and
doing just didn't seem to "work right" any more. And,
over time you began to look at these 3 to 4 day periods
as a tremendous opportunity. You had the chance to
completely reinvent your life. Yes, anything new you
reinvented it *as* was yet another set of concepts, but
they were new concepts, new ways of acting and think-
ing, and you got to experience that for a while. Until
the next desert trip. :-)
(And, for the record, I should point out that at no time
were there any drugs or any other mind-altering substances
or techniques involved. Hundreds of people at a time just
sat there, sober as judges, and watched and felt this shit
go down. Go figure.)
>I've also wondered whether the fact that TMers are not
>levitating has to do with just what you said about
>thinking you believe siddhis are possible while being
>unconsciously deeply invested in their *not* being
>possible. Maybe that investment has to let go before
>siddhis can take place.
I don't know. All I can say is that the subjective experience
of being in close proximity to someone who is actually
levitating feels nothing like what it felt like to either prac-
tice the TM sidhi program or be around it. I think there
could be a component of belief (or, more accurately, non-
belief) that could interfere with it not manifesting full-blown
levitation, but because of the difference in subjective exper-
iences, I'm not even sure we're talking about the same
phenomenon. I have *no idea* how Rama did the shit he did.
I am fairly certain it had nothing to do with the mechanics
of the TM sidhi technique or anything Maharishi teaches.
>I've further speculated that if MMY can levitate, he
>refrains from demonstrating it at least partly because
>it would be such a devastating psychic shock to so many
>people. TMers might get over it relatively quickly,
>but those who not only unconsciously but *consciously*
>believe siddhis are impossible might end up in a really
>bad way.
I'm not sure that's really an issue. There would be some
flack, but it's not really that big a deal for people who
aren't on a spiritual path. They would probably either
believe it or write it off as a trick, *because* of the
subjective aspect of witnessing these phenomena. If
they just saw video of someone really levitating, it's not
the same thing. When you're *there*, only a few feet
away, there is a subjective phenomenon that seems to
accompany the objective phenomenon, and I think that's
the part that "fucks with your mind" and "dissolves the
glue." That would be missing for all those except the
very few who were in the room with the person levitating
as he or she did so.
>> Nothing really prepares one for an experience
>> like that. So you spend some time freaking
>> out. And later, you even try to find ways to
>> explain it away, to convince yourself that
>> it never really happened. But you can't.
>> Because you were there, you saw it happen
>
>This isn't same thing, but in the past on two
>different occasions I have had two very striking
>UFO sightings (at a "safe" distance, not close
>encounters). Both times my *first* reaction
>was denial, and my second reaction was fear and a
>strong sense of disorientation.
>
>I worked very hard to explain them away and couldn't.
>Then for a while it felt like I had accepted what
>I'd seen as reality. But now, some years later, although
>I remember the two experiences vividly, they've lost much
>of their reality, as if deep down that unconscious
>disbelief has had a chance to regroup and take hold again.
I know the feeling. :-) Cognitive dissonance is delicious
torture, isn't it?
>> you *felt* it happen, and just like a strong
>> experience of samadhi, that subjective
>> experience is now part of you, and a stronger
>> part than the tendency or the ability of the
>> mind to "wish it away."
>
>With the UFO sightings, that isn't the case for me.
>But it is a much different type of experience, the
>only common element being the "impossibility"
>quotient. There's no "felt," subjective element
>to that kind of UFO sighting.
Yup. That's what I think makes the difference. Again, this
is just me trying to put words to something that wasn't
"delivered" as words. You sat there on the sand and watched
this stuff happen, but at the same time it was as if you had
no choice but to be *inside* it happening. There seemed to
be a different state of mind that accompanied each of the
many phenomena I witnessed in 14 years with this weird
guy, and experiencing *that* was one reason why people
stuck around. It wasn't really the visual part, although that
was always fun; it was being able to "put on" and "wear,"
even for a short period of time, the mindstate necessary to
create the visual phenomenon. It's difficult to put into words.
Unc
Michael
>> For example, you could believe, that *stresses* can also go through
>> *knowledge*,as knowledge is, according to the Gita, the greatest
>> purifier.
>
> But is that manas-knowledge, or Buddhi-knowledge?
Buddhi-knowledge, reflected by Manas, and then slipping back into Buddhi
Judy Stein
> I'll make an exception to my "rule" about not talking
> with Judy here because, so far, this one's not an argument,
> it's a fairly respectful conversation. :-)
Just for the record, I have always responded
"respectfully" to your posts when your posts were
themselves not disrespectful.
> Unc:
> >> It fucks with your mind. No matter how
> >> much you tell yourself you believe such
> >> things are possible, no matter how much
> >> you *think* you believe they're possible,
> >> you never really learn how much of your-
> >> self is still invested in them *not* being
> >> possible until you witness one of them
> >> personally. You basically freak out for
> >> a few days. Your whole world is askew,
> >> no matter how prepared you convinced
> >> yourself that you were for the experience.
>
> Judy:
> >I've never witnessed anything like this, but I've thought
> >for some time that if I ever saw anybody really hovering
> >during program, it would not be a positive experience at
> >all. (Might be different if *I* were the one hovering;
> >I'm not sure.)
>
> Oh, I think it's a positive experience, if irrelevant
> (because it's not like there are a lot of people around
> who can do these things). When I say that witnessing
> these things "fucks with your mind," that's just my
> dharma-bum way of relating what I think is a *good*
> experience. :-)
Ultimately, sure. I just mean that initially it would be
be disorienting and uncomfortable rather than thrilling and
blissful. It would take awhile to get to the triumphant
validation stage, if one ever did.
<snip>
> >I've also wondered whether the fact that TMers are not
> >levitating has to do with just what you said about
> >thinking you believe siddhis are possible while being
> >unconsciously deeply invested in their *not* being
> >possible. Maybe that investment has to let go before
> >siddhis can take place.
>
> I don't know. All I can say is that the subjective experience
> of being in close proximity to someone who is actually
> levitating feels nothing like what it felt like to either prac-
> tice the TM sidhi program or be around it. I think there
> could be a component of belief (or, more accurately, non-
> belief) that could interfere with it not manifesting full-blown
> levitation, but because of the difference in subjective exper-
> iences, I'm not even sure we're talking about the same
> phenomenon.
Actually I was referring to an individual's deep-down disbelief
preventing that particular individual from levitating. (Although
perhaps there's a "corporate" effect as well, where the disbelief
of others could prevent levitation even for one who didn't him/
herself have that disbelief.)
I have *no idea* how Rama did the shit he did.
> I am fairly certain it had nothing to do with the mechanics
> of the TM sidhi technique or anything Maharishi teaches.
I should think the "mechanics" of levitation itself (or
invisibility or whichever siddhi) would be the same in
either case. The technique or approach or whatever leading
up to the point at which it became possible for those
mechanics to operate could presumably be of any number of
different types.
> >I've further speculated that if MMY can levitate, he
> >refrains from demonstrating it at least partly because
> >it would be such a devastating psychic shock to so many
> >people. TMers might get over it relatively quickly,
> >but those who not only unconsciously but *consciously*
> >believe siddhis are impossible might end up in a really
> >bad way.
>
> I'm not sure that's really an issue. There would be some
> flack, but it's not really that big a deal for people who
> aren't on a spiritual path. They would probably either
> believe it or write it off as a trick, *because* of the
> subjective aspect of witnessing these phenomena. If
> they just saw video of someone really levitating, it's not
> the same thing.
Not the same, but close enough to be profoundly disorienting.
Presumably if MMY were to give a demonstration, skeptics would
be invited to witness it and closely examine the setting to
ensure there were no wires or platforms or other gimmicks.
Their testimony as to what happened would figure in for those
who only saw videotape.
Certainly many would just write it off as a trick anyway;
that's one way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. But
it doesn't eliminate the dissonance itself, it just shoves
it down to the subconscious. The reaction of many others
would be irrational fear and anger, which could have disastrous
effects.
When you're *there*, only a few feet
> away, there is a subjective phenomenon that seems to
> accompany the objective phenomenon, and I think that's
> the part that "fucks with your mind" and "dissolves the
> glue." That would be missing for all those except the
> very few who were in the room with the person levitating
> as he or she did so.
On the other hand, it might be missing for some of those
who were in the room as well.
<snip>
> >> you *felt* it happen, and just like a strong
> >> experience of samadhi, that subjective
> >> experience is now part of you, and a stronger
> >> part than the tendency or the ability of the
> >> mind to "wish it away."
> >
> >With the UFO sightings, that isn't the case for me.
> >But it is a much different type of experience, the
> >only common element being the "impossibility"
> >quotient. There's no "felt," subjective element
> >to that kind of UFO sighting.
>
> Yup. That's what I think makes the difference. Again, this
> is just me trying to put words to something that wasn't
> "delivered" as words. You sat there on the sand and watched
> this stuff happen, but at the same time it was as if you had
> no choice but to be *inside* it happening. There seemed to
> be a different state of mind that accompanied each of the
> many phenomena I witnessed in 14 years with this weird
> guy, and experiencing *that* was one reason why people
> stuck around. It wasn't really the visual part, although that
> was always fun; it was being able to "put on" and "wear,"
> even for a short period of time, the mindstate necessary to
> create the visual phenomenon. It's difficult to put into words.
No, I understand what you're saying. But at least in terms of
my response to the UFO sightings, that component doesn't have
to be there for the disorientation and fear to occur.
Of course, I did see the UFOs "live" rather than on videotape.
In one of the two cases, I was with my sister, and we both
saw exactly the same thing at the same time. The UFOs were
visible for maybe about 10 seconds; oddly, I didn't have the
impulse to mention what I'd seen to my sister. If she hadn't
piped up immediately after they vanished and said, "What the
fuck was that?" I might not have said anything at all--not
because I thought I had imagined it, but because mentioning
it would have given it a reality I didn't want to acknowledge--
especially if she had seen the same thing.
The whole literature on UFO experiences provides some good
parallels, I think, especially the "close encounter" and
"abduction"-type experiences. One of the phenomena is
something referred to as "screen memory," in which the
person who's had the experience doesn't consciously remember
the little green men per se but rather something much more
normal but just slightly out of place under the circumstances,
such as an owl (which is for some reason a common form for a
"screen memory"). Under hypnosis, these folks remember what
they really saw, and it typically terrifies them.
(Yes, to skeptics reading this, I know all the arguments
about how the hypnotist "suggests" the memory, but some
of those who are seriously involved in researching the
UFO close encounters/abduction phenomena have become very
sophisticated in their techniques exactly to respond to
this objection and get the same results while scrupulously
avoiding even the slightest suggestion.)
Well, this has gotten way off the original track, but I think
the notion that there are two levels of "belief," a surface
willingness to accept the "impossible" and a deep-down
resistance to it, and the resulting conflict when the
"impossible" has to be confronted, is a fascinating topic
with a lot of angles to it.
sir_snake86
> First, ..... But the
> experience wins.
>
> Unc
Are you able to make yourself invisible as well?
Uncle Tantra
Nope.
Judy Stein
Michael
To simplify matters: Buddhi-knowledge.
Coming from Buddhi, then being first absorbed by Manas (i.e. purely mental),
and then through experience becoming Buddhi again, and only as such it is
effective.
Judy Stein
Michael, if and when you have time and are so inclined, I'd love
it if you'd expand on this, with maybe a specific example of how
it works. As you've stated it, it's a little too abstract for
me to make much sense of.