Thanks for the feeback. I think you're right about the tendency to pick up on some buzz words and insert them into how we describe things. But like you, I have tried to adopt a more Quaker approach to my everyday languaage, and try to stick to basic terms, even if my vocabulary might have a fancier, more "impressive" word. I like that idea of silence vs. samadhi. That is pretty much just what I am talking about in this regard. Bottom line: I think the experiences I've mentioned could be better described without the sciencey terms.
Another good point. I often forget that the rather extrodinary times we live in could simply be attributed to the the new technoloogies, and less to do with another of "rising to a higher vibrational level" agenda. So, I appreciate that reminder. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > I've got to figure out what this refinement of experience > > that seems to grow in my life is all about. I like the idea > > of saying, "this is cool, I am operating at a more quantum > > level of consciousness", where I am a little more aware of > > what I perceive to be the story behind the story. > > Just as a question, what is wrong with referring > to the same phenomenon as, "This is cool...I am > becoming more and more aware of what is?" > > That is actually more accurate, IMO, and doesn't > have to borrow terms that may have nothing to do > with what is going on. You are becoming more aware > of things that have always been going on -- this > statement covers "refined perception," and it also > covers enlightenment itself. > > I prefer plain words to explain plain experiences. > Dressing the experiences up with buzzwords to make > them sound more "sciency" just doesn't float my boat. > I can see how some might prefer them, especially if > they are trying to *sell* the experiences to others, > but I'm not. I'm just describing my experiences, and > trying to be as accurate about it as possible. So > I prefer the "Quaker" approach -- "plain." Putting > more clothes on an already cool experience doesn't > make it cooler; it actually detracts. > > > And I'd like to figure out what it is that seems to be pushing me > > towards greater awareness about things. > > Since I'm rapping about language (essentially), look > at the way you phrased that, Lurk. Something is IYO > "pushing you" towards greater awareness. I have also > experienced expanding awareness, but I would never > be tempted to use language that implied that the > cause of this came from "outside" myself, or that > anything even had the *ability* to "push" me towards > it. For me it's just the natural process of becoming > more aware of What Already Is. *None* of these exper- > iences of heightened or expanded awareness have ever > been "new." They -- including enlightenment experiences > -- were merely heightened perception of things that > had always been going on. So I would tend to describe > them using that language, and not dress them up with > buzzwords. > > For me, the word "silence" works better than the word > "samadhi" to describe the subjective experience of > deep transcendence. It reaches more people, and gives > them more of an ability to conceive of and identify > with that experience than a term borrowed from a dead > language that requires a "definition" that has been > supplied by someone else. > > Maybe it's the tech writer in me :-), but I think that > "plain" is more "user-friendly." > > > Maybe I am just mood making, but my real life experience > > doesn't suggest this. I like the comparison between quantum > > phenomena and the growth of awareness. It works for me, > > but that's just me. > > No problemo. "Plain" works better for me. > > I guess that my only point in all of this is that "quantum" > would never have occurred to you as a metaphor with which > to describe your experiences of growing awareness unless > someone had not planted that term *in* your awareness. It > is a "supplied buzzword," like "samadhi," and IMO more > exclusionary than inclusive. > > In my experience in the spiritual smorgasbord, traditions > that are "buzzword-heavy" (be it Sanskrit terms or those > borrowed from "science") tend *also* to be a bit "self- > importance heavy." That is, the spiel presented to the > followers of the tradition is how *important* these > buzzword-heavy experiences are, and thus how *important* > that makes *them*. By contrast, the teachers and traditions > I've encountered that use plain, ordinary, everyday words > to describe plain, ordinary, everyday experiences of > growing awareness and enlightenment tend to *not* try > to develop a feeling of "specialness" in their students. > They emphasize the ordinariness of the experiences, and > the fact that they are available to everyone. > > In other words, my suspicion is that the use of "high- > fallutin' language" to describe the ordinary may be a > function of the desire of some people to be perceived > as high-fallutin'. I could be wrong about this, of course, > but that's how I'm seein' it this morning over coffee. > > > But what also works for me, is the notion that our world as a > > whole is moving in a particular direction, one where a "quantum" > > leap may be required. As Confusious say, "May you live during > > interesting times", or something to that effect. > > Here we must agree to disagree. I don't see that the > world is working any differently than it has at any > time in its history, or that it has a particular direc- > tion that it's moving in. If anything, man's inhumanity > to man is greater and more widespread now than at any > time in its history. A child in Africa dies every six > seconds while we chow down on veggie burgers and throw > the scraps away. It is good to remember that the saying > you quoted was a Chinese *curse*, not a blessing. > > Again, isn't some of the appeal of believing that one > knows "the direction the world is moving in" is that it's > a way of saying that one knows the future? I don't know > the future, and I don't think anyone else does, either. > We can perceive trends and make educated guesses, but > those guesses are colored by 1) our own desires, and 2) > our own conditioning -- what we've been told the trends > we perceive "mean." > > Things *are* changing faster now than they have in the past, > just as a result of the changing pace of technology and > speed of global communication, but I'm not convinced that > there is any new "direction" to that change. To quote > another old saying, "Plus ca change, plus le meme." > The more things change, the more they stay the same. > > Just my opinion. YMMV. >
