--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote:
> Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and > skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of > trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt -- > and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of universal > love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus on them. An > adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the charismatic > beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like they would > protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we can't have > people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees). I believe these mental states do have a value (even if it is just for entertainment) but that value is not in the content of the beliefs that are spontaneously generated such as, trees are reflecting my love. Taking their content seriously is the mistake the ancients made. We don't have to take the content of these states of awareness literally and seriously (trees actually do love us) to enjoy the state of union through love or your being or whatever else you want to call it. In fact trying to draw literal conclusions diminishes the potential value for our creativity and artistic expression from having these experiences. If you talk to a tree you are a poet, if it talks back you are a nutter in society! But being able to drift into the states of mind where you can have conversations with trees is a wonderful tool for creativity that gets squashed when someone claims that this experience is evidence for the highly developed sentient nature of trees. We can and should visit the holy tree in the Avatar movie but we shouldn't forget that it is a movie and once the 3-D glasses come off, what we have gained is not definite ontological information about how the world really is. We have gained a shift of perspective that we can then use to spark actual tests on the world if we are scientists or expressions of art if we are an artist. I am an advocate of people having more of this type of experiences through many different means including psychedelics and meditation but hope we can not make the mistake our religiously minded and bound ancestors did concerning what they mean. We need to approach that with the starting point that we do no already know what they mean. But to assume that they serve as a self-evident source of knowledge about the world is the lamest choice of all. It discards a whole body of knowledge and perspective that has served us well in building human knowledge to this point. Artistically and creatively inspired altered states of mind have a place. But they aren't remotely close to being the source of man's deepest knowledge yet. Historically they have led us astray as much as they have inspired us. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you > > > > are so quick to defend him? > > > > > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs > > > to defend them from unfair attack. > > > > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own > > is OK. > > > > > > > > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can > > > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"), > > > and *neither do you*. > > > > Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no > > evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I > > can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating > > that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences > > have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense. > > Something Chopra does rather well out of. > > > > > > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation > > > can bring about an earthquake. > > > > How about 5000 people? > > > > Thinking about this just having dwelled on and posted (comments on a > Turquoise post) )my interpretation of what I term interaction with a > high-shakti person -- I offer up the possiblility -- in my experience - that > such a person can make you tangibly feel their presence -- and that "thing" > can get transfered to others / me. The experience makes quite credible (to > me, one person, not exactly science) the "lion lay down with the lamb" thing. > That some people can radiate a universal love shakti thing that does rub off > on the environment and people and animals are affected by it. > > (when I started mediation I had a dog who would lie down outside my door and > calmly wait for me to finish my med. Maybe it was simply a natural dog > affection thing. But my dog didn't sit outside my door at other times. > Again, not science, but an anecdotal dot.) > > Even if this experience is only cognized by humans and animals (and my > experience hardly proves that such occurs) -- my sense is that it could > affect inanimate physical things too. > > Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and > skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of > trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt -- > and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of universal > love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus on them. An > adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the charismatic > beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like they would > protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we can't have > people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees). >
