--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:40 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington > > > > > It was as though I were in deep meditation throughout the whole dynamic, > > noisy experience. Not withdrawn or passive in the least just > > imperturbable. > > I'm glad you weighed in Rick. > > Sorry I don't have time to follow the discussion more closely. > > >I think your example illustrates that > the usefulness of these states is context dependent. In a situation > like you mentioned, a detached silence is a real asset. But I believe > that this state is not useful for making love. > > Our difference is that you regard these states as relative perspectives, > whereas I regard them as openings to universal realities. That makes sense, > since you doubt the existence of subtler realities. You also imply in your > last sentence above that "higher" states make one emotionally numb. I think > there is evidence for that in the TMO, but there is also evidence throughout > the larger spiritual community that greater emotional richness accompanies > development of consciousness. I don't know much about tantra, but I gather > that tantrics regard the ability to maintain inner silence as a great aid to > love making. > > Neuro-linquistic > programming (NLP) looks at these different states in relationship to > the usefulness in a specific context. Their goal is to be able to > shift fluidly between the options. I think they are related to the > states produced by meditation. Where I differ with traditional yogic > theory is that they seem to feel that you can't have too much silence > along with activity. I think you can depending on what you are doing. > > I agree with you, but I think that "too much" would only be a temporary > state, due to inadequate integration. Also, the people I know who seem to be > speaking from experience say that the whole witnessing/silence thing is a > stage, and that silence is eventually perceived to be full of dynamism. I'm > a little out of my league discussing this, but the point I'm trying to make > is that there may be some undesirable aspects to certain stages in the > development of consciousness, but these stages are transitional, and as one > moves on, the undesirable aspects drop off and one is grateful to have > persisted in the journey. >
exactly right Rick, in my experience. witnessing is nothing more than the first glimpses of ceding the individual ego to the cosmic ego. after awhile the cosmic ego predominates and the individual ego disappears. just as you said, it is all a matter of integration. The companion of silence which initially seems foreign is later found to be true identity. seeing these experiences of growing awareness as discrete and unrelated is similar to taking a car ride from Boston to San Francisco, exiting the vehicle in upstate New York, and declaring the path fragmented.
