--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > > In other words, "scientists" investigating a > > purely drug-related experience would not be > > tempted to project "God" or "perfection" onto > > reports of that experience. But believers in all > > of the historical religious or "spiritual" spec- > > ulations about what such an experience "means" > > will *always* project their beliefs onto it, > > and thus color and invalidate their findings. > > > > Research on enlightenment conducted by believers > > in the religious or spiritual nature of enlight- > > enment is *always* going to be bogus, because > > the believers seemingly cannot divorce their > > beliefs from what they are investigating. > > Since I was the first "derailer" I'll help you get back on to > your topic.
Thanks, Curtis. Your posts probably planted the idea in my head in the first place, but I've been thinking about it lately, and how much prejudicial junk is built into the study of enlightenment. It's even in the language -- believers tend to always refer to it as a "higher" state of consciousness, not just a "different" one or an "altered" one. > Your post is an excellent exposition of what I have concluded. That > the traditional understanding of the states of mind brought about by > meditation and other "spiritual" techniques are NOT best understood > by people from the past who tended to filter everything through > their Uga Booga spin. That was their model for everything. Why > does the sun cross the sky? A god pulls it across with a chariot > of course! This is what drives me up the wall with some of JohnR's posts. He seems intent on reinter- preting all of existence in terms of the Vedas, as if they are somehow the "master document," and everything by definition *has* to fit into their vision of things. Lately he's been trying to do it with particle physics. > What happens when a person's mind settles down without thought? > They are experiencing the source of the whole universe and the > home of all the laws of nature (another name for gods). When, in reality, all that we can legitimately say that they are experiencing is the mind free from thoughts. Why isn't that ENOUGH? Probably 95% of the people on the planet would say, if asked, that such a state cannot exist, because they haven't ever experienced it. To me, the thoughtless state is pretty whiz-bang neat *without* all the Uga Booga. > By only viewing these experiences in the most fanciful possible > way by following old traditions the public is left with a > skepticism that anyone is really experiencing something > interesting at all. I think they might figure that if you are > imaginative enough to call a silent state of you mind, "your big > Self" (don't forget to use capital letters) then you might just > be making the whole thing up. Exactly. If the people being tested were being honest, what they would say is that they are experiencing a thoughtless state, and that it feels pretty neat. But when they describe it as "merging with the home of all the laws of the universe and enlivening them," who would NOT laugh at them who has not been pre-brainwashed to use and understand that jargon used as a euphemism for something much simpler. To me, the "simple version" would be easier for people to understand, without the Uga Booga. > But I know from my own experience that you can alter your mode > of functioning. As do I. I am **NOT** a skeptic about the exis- tence of a state that we could call "enlightenment." Been there, done that, even if it only lasted for days or weeks at a time. But I did **NOT** find that I was "perfect" during those periods of time, or that I was "in tune with all the laws of nature" or that I was "one with God" during those periods. I've had these experiences off an on now for 36 years, and I don't even *believe* in God. :-) > I don't know what it means and I extend that to "neither did > Maharishi." Exactly. I think that he did exactly what we see JohnR and others doing in his wake -- consider the old belief system the "master document" and then try to reinterpret all experience *in terms of it*. I suspect that almost everyone can see the bogosity of such an approach. TM TBs on this forum can see it when Christians do it, but they seem to be unable to see when *they* do it. > But is it an interesting aspect of our minds and might be useful in > some way outside the self realization model. But it is going to take > a lot more time because most thoughtful people are either not > inclined to look at it as spiritual people do, or they have their > own competing spirituality that interferes. Or, because they have never experienced anything like these phenomena themselves, they have no interest in them. > I do think that good scientific methodology can transcend (dare I > use the term?) a researcher's bias. You just need some oversight in > structuring it from a more impartial party. Or a "partial party" who is truly open-minded. I really like the Dalai Lama's approach. He has said outright, in expressing his support for real scien- tific examination of the experiences of meditation, that if science finds that the beliefs of Buddhism are not correct, then it's the *beliefs* that have to change, not the science. Can you imagine Maharishi or any of the "TM scien- tists" ever saying that, or doing it?
