--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> 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. >
There's something you're missing here: physiological correlates of the whole thing. While its true that interpretation plays a part in how you describe something, fact is that champion athletes are more likely to show physiological signs of enlightenment AND describe their inner self in CC-like terms than non-champion athletes. L.
