--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "abutilon108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > It's interesting that you say "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." At a certain point, I became > disillusioned with "states of consciousness" because a state comes and > goes. For the longest time, I lived for states of consciousness that > I not only enjoyed but that I thought (thanks to MMY) were "higher" > and therefore an indication that I was making progress or maybe was > even a "better" person because of them. > > There's the idea in MMY's description, as least how I understand it, > that a state can become permanent -- such as permanent unity > consciousness. But that just doesn't make any sense to me. All of > his descriptions seem to be about an experiencer experiencing things > in a certain way. What about the disappearance of a separate > experiencer? Although you can define unity consciousness as the > disappearance of the separate experiencer, MMY's description always > seemed worded in such a way as to indicate that there was someone > (some one) there having the experience. An experience always comes > and goes. I would thing the "deeper reality than any of them" is > independent of the sense of a separate me having the experience. > > I know what I'm saying will be subject to all sorts of > interpretations. I think the event in consciousness that I'm > interested in can't be described neatly. One thing with MMY's > "knowledge" is that it has neat, clear descriptions. I've had > experiences which fit all these descriptions, but again they were only > experiences. An experience can be described. Those I consider wise > are clear that Reality can only be alluded to. > > When I was a TBer, I felt I was in the know because I could repeat > descriptions. I'd mastered certain words and concepts. Interestingly > now, none of those seems to have any value for me anymore. I also > thought that I was in the know because I'd experienced the states MMY > described, at least I had experiences that seemed to fit his > descriptions. (This gets muddy because we have know way of knowing if > someone else's experience, or even our own, is correlated with MMY's > descriptions.) In any case, while I will sometimes find myself > curious about an experience, for the most part I've lost interest in > experiences and "states of consciousness". Maybe it's a question of > what I value. Maybe it's the loss of an addiction to experience. It's > just interesting to find myself in such a different place than I was > when I was so caught up in what MMY had to say and in the TMO. >
Dunno if MMY ever was "in Unity" or not, but the very act of "explaining" inherits a narrator, narrative and audience so complaining about his explanations implying such things is kinda tautological. Forget "kinda" : it IS a tautology. Lawson
