"I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly."
** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the "unchanging witness" is an "aspect of the mind" and "an artifact of consciousness", however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it "before". Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it "feels" like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > "Identity is non-physical" > > with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think > > I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya > > got twelve in the juryroom still? > > My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when > the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going > to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my > guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor > pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little fireside chat with the > interior of my colon. > > I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an > unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of > consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough > time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you > notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. > > But making a case for it being the transpersonal basis for all > creation is just imposing a religious assertion on top of it. It is > making a bigger deal about it than I think it deserves. But I could > be wrong. But so far all the magical stuff claimed about this state > of mind has not shown up. Has it? Maharishi was a charismatic > interesting guy and all but he didn't show up as having special powers > to me, beyond what an eccentric relentless self promoter like Donald > Trump exhibits. The Donald sleeps as little as Maharishi did too! > > > > > > > "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > > > > > enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no > > > > longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of > perception. > > > > > > > You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met > > anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. > > Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness > > for this to be a problem. > > > > > > I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental > > > presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember > > > when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. > > > > Curtis, > > > > This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? > > > > I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the > > mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought-feeling (the > > mind) is a tar baby that allures Identity to become its soul. Moment > > by moment WE INVEST in objects. We enter them. We identify with > > them. We affirm their existence like dying folks in the desert > > crawling towards a mirage of an oasis. > > > > Each thought impossibly grabs us effortlessly -- we rubberneck them > > like roadside accidents . . . unable to avert our gazing. > > > > When I buy a new car, woe unto anyone who comes up to it and bangs it > > with a fist -- I will feel pain I tells ya! That's my Identity you're > > pounding on there bub! > > > > Just so, being a narcissist, I'm happy to report that each of my > > thoughts is like a new Ferrari being delivered to my driveway. > > > > Curtis, I keep banging on your door about Identity -- am I merely > > droning at this stage, or do you see enough wiggle room such that you > > are examining this assertion of mine that "Identity is non- physical" > > with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think > > I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya > > got twelve in the juryroom still? > > > > Edg > > >
