Thank you for your reply. Not informative for my curiosity about these things. I was just curious. I had not intended to 'lock horns' on this one, as you put it. However, I suppose if someone wanted to really get you to talk more openly about things, the spiritual technique of waterboarding might be one of the few that would bring a result. Unfortunately that technique is kind of hands on. I hope you have a generous supply of socks.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > Turq, I am unable to keep up these conversations in real > > time, but I have some comments in the exchanges below. > > I'll follow up a little, now that I've had my coffee, > and try to explain to you why I'm not following up any > more than I am. > > You are a newb here, and unaware to some extent of the > history of this place. There are a few people here whose > idea of fun is having "conversations" that resemble two > bulldogs tugging at the same bone. They can go on and on > and on and on about the things they "debate." Some have > been known to try to draw out such discussions for weeks, > or longer. It's almost as if they believe that someone > can "win" or "prove themselves right" about matters of > pure opinion (as, IMO, all assertions of spiritual 'truth' > are). This is just not my idea of fun. > > I prefer throwing out ideas, for no other purpose than > playing with them, and to see whether anyone else can > have fun playing with them, too. The conversations I like > the best are largely composed of what some would demonize > as "non-sequiturs," where one person throws out Idea A, > the next jumps to Idea Z because he or she sees a link > between the two, and the third maybe jumps to Idea M. I > see no need to pursue the forms of traditional, linear > "debate" when discussing ideas for fun. > > You strike me as being somewhat of the bulldog mentality. > That's fine, if it floats yer boat, but please don't > expect it to float mine. When I get a whiff of someone > who seems to want to "lock horns" and turn what could be > a pleasant, short-lived exchange of opinions into a long, > protracted exchange or debate, my first impulse is to > blow the person off and do something more interesting, > like washing my socks. > > I understand that you have questions about the experiences > I presented *for informational purposes only*, and I wish > you luck in finding "answers" to them. I have none for you. > I am not selling anything here, least of all my opinion > as anything but opinion. IMO none of my ideas are worth > forming attachments to, and none are worth "defending." > > As for your comments about me reacting to either criticism > or appreciation of what I write the same way (not at all), > that in my opinion is a compliment. Thank you for noticing. > You may see these things differently, and that is your right. > > Might I suggest, if you want to get into long, protracted > discussions here, that you pick someone on this forum who > enjoys such things. I do not. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > Nice idea. I have never encountered this, although I have > > > > encountered one teacher that could in the space of a few > > > > days get a fair number of persons to experience a shift > > > > in SOC, if only temporary, but it was not like a broadcast. > > > > If you have encountered such teachers of the second kind, > > > > do they have names? > > > > > > Yes, but they would do you no good. Two of the four > > > I've met are now dead, and the other two I have heard > > > went back to Bhutan, and are no longer working with > > > non-Bhutanese or non-Tibetan students. They gave work- > > > ing with Westerners a shot on teaching tours and > > > (from what I am told) now prefer to work only with > > > people who can make a longer-term commitment. They > > > didn't like the "drop in" approach. > > > > > > > And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast > > > > an SOC? > > > > > > I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective > > > experience of working with these teachers. > > > > > > > I am asking this because your description makes it sound like > > > > a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? > > > > > > Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the > > > past about "darshan," being able to put on a SOC so > > > powerfully that others in the audience could be in > > > the same room and somehow "recognize" in the teacher's > > > SOC the counterpart of a "matching" SOC that was within > > > them, just not realized yet, and as a result "access" it. > > > That's a more "non-doing" theory, but this is pure spec- > > > ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only > > > *that* it was done. > > > > > > > It makes me think of something like in old science fiction > > > > movies (say 1940) where the doctor says "If I can just get to > > > > the laboratory I can create a ray which will change his SOC." > > > > > > It sounds completely "science fictiony," until you have > > > experienced it. Having done so does not make it in the > > > least more understandable or less fantastic; but you've > > > had the subjective experience. > > > > > > > With the material you presented here, it seems like you could > > > > have just made this up. > > > > > > I could have, but I didn't. On the other hand, if it pleases > > > you to consider it fiction, that is your right and I won't > > > spend even the tiniest bit of effort trying to convince you > > > otherwise. I don't understand it myself; I just experienced it. > > > And clearly I'm not attempting to "sell" it to anyone, because > > > as far as I know there is nothing to sell any more. You may > > > treat what I wrote however you want. I wrote it because I ran > > > into some old friends and we got to talking about this form > > > of teaching (which we all have experienced), and that was > > > fresh in my mind. I wrote what I wrote (as I often do) in an > > > attempt to clarify *for myself* some of the discussions we > > > had and the thoughts still rattling around in my head as a > > > result. > > > > > > > It is a great story idea, but how could someone find out that > > > > what you say here is real? > > > > > > Even worse, if you experienced it yourself, how could you > > > convince *yourself* that it was real, much less anyone else? :-) > > > > The reason I brought this up is what I experienced was different, at least > > in the manner in which it arose. Prior to TM, I had tried various other > > things. One of these things was a teaching environment in which a person's > > system of belief was essentially in a situation where it would not work. It > > was constantly under attack. Eventually, at least for some in this > > environment, one would just let go, some obstacle or idea, or stress, > > whatever you want to call it would blow off and there would be an > > experience of 'expanded consciousness,' a feeling of great relief, a lot of > > bliss, a real high. Eventually the high would retreat and experience closed > > down again, but it would last for several days, and even after it closed > > down, one was not back to square one, one was changed in some way, at least > > a small part of the experience remained. > > > > Sometimes these experiences, once triggered this way would happen > > spontaneously, completely unbidden, when taking a walk, or driving. Each > > time it blew something off, and things felt freer afterward. > > > > This is different than taking a drug for example. One can get high on a > > psychotropic drug like LSD. These experiences can be fantastic. But > > afterward, nothing remains, no growth, no feeling freer, no sense one's > > experience has expanded in any way. Spiritual growth, if one wants to call > > it that and make it sound like a progression, has a progressive quality to > > it unlike an artificial chemical high that is induced, and then retreats. > > It is like the brain is rewired in some way. > > > > So, when I questioned the reality of what you said happened to you, about > > these guys projecting an SOC it was because 1} My experiences opened in a > > different way, and 2) the putting on of SOCs as if putting on a series of > > hats did not fit in what I had either experienced before, or understood, > > from what I had heard or read before. It is unfamiliar, so I have more > > questions about what you experienced. > > > > In your own words, how would you describe the experience you had with these > > guys from Bhutan? I mean some detail of the experiences highlighted in the > > questions following. > > > > How long did it take before you experienced a shift in your awareness? > > > > Did you have some idea, that is intellectual understanding, of what you > > were experiencing at the time? Or did that come later. > > > > How persistent was the experience, that is how long did it last? > > > > Did you feel transformed afterward? Or did you feel you returned to your > > usual SOC whatever that might have been at the time. > > > > Since these guys were 'projecting' this, were you left with any ability to > > do it yourself after you were out of their presence, like what percent of > > what they projected, could you recreate, if any? > > > > How many different SOCs did you experience? Did these correspond to the TMO > > SOC scheme, or was it something less or more complicated? > > > > After shifting out of one them into another, did you lose the ability to > > experience what the other was like? This question is prompted by my > > experience that when the awareness shifts, I only can appreciate the > > current live state, that is, everything is experienced from the POV of the > > current state, and while the memory of another state might be there, its > > essential quality is not. > > > > Some states are more 'whole' than others, so when they go, if they go, it > > is experienced as a loss, as if something wonderful is missing. If a less > > 'whole' state is replaced by a more 'whole' one, and it seems to be stable, > > it's like relief, that that previous state will not happen again. > > Eventually it seems as if the differences that I call 'states of > > consciousness' become less and less, as if these differences which seemed > > real in the beginning, were some kind of aberrant thinking. I am not quite > > sure how to say this, but basically it is the world is as I experience it. > > However I experience it at the moment, that is all there is to it. > > > > > > > > That's the position I'm in. > > > > > > > Remember, walking the path is fine. We all do this. But the > > > > idea is for the path to go away... > > > > > > According to whom? Not according to me. For me, the path > > > is just for the walking, without any fixed destination or > > > goal. > > > > According to me. Maybe we are using the word path in different ways. We can > > call our entire life a path. Whatever we do, whether we are ignorant, > > enlightened, stupid, smart, this path is our entire life. The 'spiritual > > path' I am calling a subset of this life path. The spiritual path is > > something we make up when we get the idea in our head that there is > > something called a spiritual path. It has a goal, and we do things in > > pursuit of this goal. The problem with this path is it is illusory, but we > > cannot know this unless this quest has a certain amount of success. Then we > > realise that this path does not really exist, we had tricked ourselves into > > thinking it was real. This is what I meant when I said the path goes away. > > Our motivation to follow it goes away, even if we sense there is more to > > come, our approach to whatever that 'more' is, changes. The life path, our > > whole life, that path, whatever we do, that remains, at least as long as we > > are alive, and we can call it a path, but it has no goal, it just goes on. > > If you want (especially if you have free will) you can pretend any kind of > > subset to your life, and you can fix, temporarily, a goal, like going to a > > blues festival, or having a cup of coffee. > > > > Does that clear up the discrepancy between what I said and what you said, > > or does that discrepancy remain? > > > > > > ...and before it does, it is not all groovy and enjoyable, > > > > some really difficult experiences can arise. > > > > > > Speak for yourself. Attempts to speak for everyone don't > > > usually impress me very much. :-) > > > > I said these darker experiences can arise. I am speaking for myself. They > > are not guaranteed to arise. Maybe you never had any. Great. I have had > > some, I have known a lot of people who have had rough experiences. I think > > they are common, but not everybody has had them. I was speaking for myself > > and some others. It was an extrapolation to speak of them for many, but it > > is logically reasonable. But there is no evidence this applies to all. > > > > > > > Some day "maybe" we can "discuss" your "extensive" use of > > > > quote "marks." > > > > > > Or not. I care as little about what you think of my writing > > > style as I do what you think of its content. Really. > > > > OK. I may be wrong in this, but I have the idea you are afraid to commit > > your feelings to the particulars of your life, that you dearly like > > enjoyment etc., but that you don't want the possibility of the opposite, > > like grief, or disappointment. You get a lot of flak on this forum, but you > > seem to kind of side-step it. I think you put people off, keep them at a > > safe distance so they do not entrap you. You brush off compliments and > > criticism off-handedly or by attempting to put the encumbrance of the > > argument on the person responding to you. Or it could be my surmise here is > > just wrong, and you are truly unattached. But non attachment does not lead > > to disengagement nor does it lead to not fully entering into the > > particulars of one's life - physically, emotionally, intellectually. Non > > attachment enables you to engage more, and more directly. And I am saying > > this so don't reply 'says who?,' assuming you reply. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > You added some additional comments in this post: > > > > > > > > > > > > And what are the mechanics behind the ability to broadcast > > > > > an SOC? > > > > > > > > I have no earthly idea. I report only on my subjective > > > > experience of working with these teachers. > > > > > > > > > I am asking this because your description makes it sound like > > > > > a radio broadcast - a mental projection or something like that? > > > > > > > > Something like that. Or, as I have suggested in the > > > > past about "darshan," being able to put on a SOC so > > > > powerfully that others in the audience could be in > > > > the same room and somehow "recognize" in the teacher's > > > > SOC the counterpart of a "matching" SOC that was within > > > > them, just not realized yet, and as a result "access" it. > > > > That's a more "non-doing" theory, but this is pure spec- > > > > ulation on my part. I have no idea how it was done, only > > > > *that* it was done. > > > > > > One facet of this that most intrigues me, because it > > > is such a "game changer" compared to almost all other > > > descriptions of different states of consciousness, is > > > that these folks had the ability to "put on" a state > > > of consciousness *at will*. > > > > > > Think about that. The model most of us have been > > > presented with along the spiritual path is that SOCs > > > are "achieved" or "realized," but then you're kinda > > > stuck with them. You "get to" CC, but you can't then > > > put on the consciousness of normal waking state if > > > you want to, say, for teaching purposes. Similarly, > > > if you "get to" UC, you can't then "backtrack" during > > > a talk on GC and temporarily "wear" that state of > > > consciousness in order to model it or demo it for > > > your students. > > > > > > These guys could. They could change states of conscious- > > > ness more quickly than you can change clothes. They > > > weren't "stuck in" *any* of them. I find that not only > > > fascinating, but far more impressive than the traditional > > > model of unidirectional, linear progression through the > > > different states of consciousness. > > > > > > At least one of them spoke about this. In his opinion, > > > all of these states of consciousness were *congruent*, > > > meaning that they were simultaneously present at all > > > times. You merely accessed the state you wanted. There > > > was no "achieving" or "realization" needed, merely the > > > decision to select from a "menu of available options." > > > > This is the model I use, that all these states are congruent, but I have > > never experienced what you are talking of here, that one can select them at > > will. I have experienced a progression, and a falling back, and a > > progression, and falling back less and so on. I have no desire to > > experience from a menu, just the container of the menu. Has anyone else on > > this forum experienced what Turq is describing here? I am still not > > convinced he is not trying to pull one over on me. But I do know from > > experience that it is possible to experience a rapid shift in SOC and have > > it shift back. If there is anyone on the forum in CC (as in the MMY system) > > that would like to experience just waking consciousness again? > > > > > > > > Clearly, these guys all believed in free will. :-) > > > > > > Please bear in mind that none of these people believed > > > in the "seven states of consciousness" as presented by > > > Maharishi. I'm using WC, CC, GC and UC here because that > > > is how most on this forum think. The teachers I'm talking > > > about would consider that model a gross oversimplification. > > > Most were Buddhist, and believed more in its "ten thousand > > > states of mind" (which is a euphemism for "lots and lots > > > of them, possibly an infinite number of them" not a number > > > per se). > > > > I would agree that cutting up the consciousness pie can be done many > > different ways. The phrase 'ten thousand states of mind' reminds me of the > > phrase 'the ten thousand things' in Taoist literature, a phrase that means > > infinite number of things, but maybe the Chinese had no word for the > > concept infinity at the time, and 'ten thousand things' made do for that. > > The idea applies to the fragmentation of experience into discrete entities. > > >
