I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is "higher." If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them.
--- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > One of my favorite quotes from last week is this > from > > Sandy Ego: > > > > Now I will explain myself, and please see if you > can > > discriminate between what I am saying, and what > you > > think I am > > saying. > > > > If he creates his world with his thoughts and > > perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what > > everyone else should also be doing or they're > deluded, > > then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone > > saying? I can only know what I think they're > saying. > > > > I'm pasting an interesting article below about a > > scientist who recorded her experience of having a > > stroke and then spoke about it on TED talks > because it > > may shed an interesting light on "higher states." > > > > I've had experiences of what's been described as > > "Unity," I can switch into that experience at > will, > > but, for the life of me, I can't see that it is a > > "higher state" than any other state I've > experienced. > > They're just states, useful for some things, not > so > > useful for others. And no matter how much my > > experience is that I am the author of my universe, > my > > body still ages. I'm a very, very long way from > the > > time I had a job in a key club, wearing stilettos > and > > net stockings while delivering heavy trays of food > and > > drinks from a dirty kitchen to dirty old men. > > > > Well, I don't know that there is really such a thing > as Unity consciousness using the TM > definition, but it is obvious that you are not and > never have been in that state, by the TM > definition. > > > I'm not convinced that such a state exists in anyone > currently, or, if it does, that MMY ever > was in it, but, using the TM definition, which you > have implicitly acknowledged, you are > not and never have been, in said state. > > THAT said, I can see why you don't find the > non-existence of the state in yourself to be of > any value... > > > Just an observation. > > > Lawson > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
