--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > the key is in Curtis's statement about the silence -experienced in > > meditation-. by saying this, he indicates that the silence > > experienced in meditation does not also pervade activity before and > > after meditation, and so the -silence experienced in meditation- > > becomes just another relative phenomenon, experienced as transient. > > > > only when silence is experienced continuously, waking, dreaming and > > sleeping does it convey its true nature as something we can identify > > with. > > I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of my mind > that exists in my activity. That is not a self evident experience. > It takes a belief system to support it. Just because I have a silent > quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my > self. For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind. Not > that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that I > value most.
Interesting post. If I may ask, if you are agreeable to share, what is the part of you that you most value? (of course there is a quick, obvious answer - but beyond that.) And "silent quality of the mind" is kind a snoozer for me. Who would identify with that -- as described as such. I find a natural affinity for what I internally hazily refer to as " Sun". Its a silent quality of the mind, I suppose, but thats not the salient thing about it. If there is a bright light of warmth within you (these are poetic descriptions qualities, not literal, but it feels in the radiant class of things) then, at least for me, identity seems to be with that rather than social identity or achievements. Though the whole concept of identity is perhaps not even a good descriptor. Its not anything like my social identity. And this may not be the silent quality of the mind ED is referring to. And it may not correspond to anything ancients felt. Given that -- we cannot experience what another does, for sure, and no one can adequately describe inner states completely. > I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a universal > truth. Have you seen the show Weeds. There is a great shot of "The Church of Absolute Truth" -- a bit of a flim flam church. Which to me is a perfect image. How would one determine if something was universally true. There are lots of different people -- and the universe is quite large. We would only know if "The Church of Absolute Truth" (pick your own denomination, TMO, Republicanism, fundamentalists ..) tells us its true. And we are one of the ones born every second. >But we all interpret our internal experience our own way. I > spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed > the silence of their minds in activity as their true self. What did they identify with? Some aspect of Christ? > They > considered this a critical theological difference between Maharishi > and their POV. A comment from a priest I know who started TM -- and while taking the SCI course said diplomatically "I am used to a bit more rigor". > So it is not a given that anyone who experiences > witnessing or any of the other altered states from meditation will > come to the same conclusions you have about what they mean. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > >
