--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote:
> > Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self? Why? > > If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT identify it> as being "more real" than non-silence? Perhaps that kind of consistency is not the only measure. My sense of my self includes the silent part of my mind, but it is not the only consistent part of my internal world. I have other personal tendencies that have been a part of me as long as I have known myself. Just because a part of my mind can be awake during sleep doesn't mean that is my identity. In fact it retains nothing of what I value about myself so it is definitely not the best aspect of who I am. Most meditators have adapted Maharishi's interpretation of what constitutes the self. I am not arguing that you should stop if you enjoy that POV. But I don't share it. I interpret my experiences differently. This identification is not a set thing, it is shaped by pre-suppositional beliefs. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" > > <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > Curtis writes in this, "I don't share his (Maharishi's) view > > > that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature or our > > > real self." > > > > > > Ouch, is that right? True? > > > > Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of > > meditation is not obviously my "true" nature or "real self." It is > > just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it means but > > I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives death > > for example, or any of the other magical properties Maharishi ascribes > > to it. > > > > Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self? Why? > > If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT identify it > as being "more real" than non-silence? > > > L. >
