--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> That is your right. I stick to my guns. I suggest > that the whole *idea* of proving enlightenment > scientifically is dependent on having been to some > extent indoctrinated with dogma about enlightenment. > Otherwise, the very idea of "proving its existence > scientifically" wouldn't have even come up. > I would go further. I think that there are legiti- > mate subjective experiences that people have had > and may be continuing to have that have been > *called* enlightenment. What I question is whether > that "state" has much to do with what has been said > about it in the past, *by* the groups calling it > enlightenment. There have been accounts of mystical experiences or experiencs of exlightenment for thousands of years. You either resonate with them or you don't. If you have an experience that you find perplexing, then through chance or by an active search you may find others have had a similiar experience. And that may help you undestand your experience. I am not seeing anything wrong with this. > > But I see changes in my experience which in some cases > > mirror what has been described as milestones on the path > > to an awakening. > > The key phrases being (IMO), "in some cases" and "has > been described." So you are saying that desire to see > enlightenment examined scientifically WAS, in fact, > spurred by what was described to you as enlightenment. > And you're saying that your personal experiences with > this mirror only "in some cases" what was told to you. No, not what was told to me, but mostly what I have read. Yes, I have been influenced, I am sure, by TMs Seven States of Consciousness, but you seem to imply that I am trapped in this mindset. Why would you make such an assumption? > That's exactly what I'm saying. The *descriptions* > we have been given across the centuries of enlightenment > and what it "means" have IMO very little to do with what- > ever the subjective experience of enlightenment really is. > I am suggesting that much of the "science" involved in > "proving" its existence is an attempt to make it seem as > if these descriptions we've been given across the cen- > turies are *accurate*. Descriptions such as "the enlight- > ened cannot possibly do any wrong," and "the enlightened > are capable of things mere mortals are not." I have not > seen any indications that these things are true. I think you are making quite a leap here. You seem to want to ascribe all sorts of motives to this process of becoming more aware. Who has brought up the idea about the enlightened being infallible, or super human? We, or I, am talking about an internal transformation. I have to say you seem to have cockeyed view of how people may view this concept. > There might be. But whether they are *directly* related > to your subjective experience, or to some "state" called > enlightenment is pure speculation. Look back at the first > Keith Wallace studies. He was convinced that all *sorts* > of measurements he found in his studies "indicated new > states of consciousness." Turns out he was wrong, and > these indicators are found in all sorts of people, many > of whom have never heard of TM or meditation. Okay, he was wrong. That was forty years ago. Things change in forty years, including the ways we measure things. > What he was doing was starting with a premise (that is, > "Maharishi is right"), and then trying to fudge the data > to support his premise. I'm suggesting that a lot of the > scientific research aiming at pinpointing enlightenment > is exactly the same thing -- drawing circles around an > already-placed arrow and calling it a "bulls-eye." Well, I guess you have to examine the research, and determine if this is the case. But you seem to have a bias against even doing this kind of research. > First problem: WHO says that these subjects are enlight- > ened? The person themselves? Hardly conclusive. If I may > remind you, both Robin and Ravi have claimed here that > they are -- or were -- enlightened. For all I know they might be. That would surprise me, but maybe they are, and maybe there is some way to measure some parameters about them. > Certainly there are very few organizations that "certify" > enlightenment in either their teachers or their students. > And IMO for good reason. None of them wants to declare > someone enlightened and then have them fuck up publicly. > Try to imagine the PR nightmare it would have been for > the TMO if Maharishi *had* declared Robin enlightened, > and he'd gone on to do the same crazy-ass stuff he did > while "uncertified." Now I must ask, how one "certifies" enlightenment. It sounds like you are describing a very subjective process. And I suspect that there are ways to verify this subjectively, but within the confines of a group, and nothing that they would feel the need to present as solid evidence. On the other hand, I guess the Buddhists have some way to determine who is a particular lama that has reincarnated. > And you consider this *science*? Measure all the people > who claim to be enlightened all you want, and I can pretty > much *assure* you that you will find things that they have > in common. First, I would suspect that they all breathe. > Therefore, breathing is a sign of enlightenment. :-) I don't know what they would find. Maybe they would find nothing. So what. Maybe they would find something. > I dismiss ALL science as "nothing conclusive." So would > any scientist worth his salt. The most any real scientist > would ever say is, "Given the data we have so far, gained > from the limited measuring technologies we have so far, > this *looks* as if it might hint as some trend or inter- > pretation. But of course we can't declare it 'fact' because > tomorrow's experiments might find something else." That IS > the nature of science. Well, of course it is. We all know nothing is ever proved. But for all practical purposes we accept many things as facts. That is how we live our lives. Everyone of us. > Why yes, I do. That is the mindset I am describing. > I think that *most* of the desire for "more scientific > verification" in the TMO movement has always been and > will always be a thinly-veiled attempt at evangelism. > The "scientists" are thinking, "Wait'll they see our > test results. THEN they'll know that we were right. > THEN they'll all want to learn TM." I am sure you are right. But I think we've moved past that. I don't think anyone is really looking at the TM research. I think the research has expanded into other venues trying to determine if there might be different, or "higher" states of consciousness. > That may be true, but it has no bearing on whether > enlightenment can ever be "proved" scientifically. Maybe it can't. Probably it can't. But maybe we'll learn something along the way. > > > Who, after all, who has not already been convinced as a > > > result of either upbringing in an "enlightenment exists" > > > culture or as the result of decades of dogma ingestion, > > > is going to even CARE if science can prove that such a > > > state exists? Why does anyone try to prove anything? Why are you interested in the Cathars, and have chosen that as a subject to puruse? Likely because it interests you. Isn't that why someone might want to see if there are physiological parameters of a so called elevated state of consciousness? > It would. IF you could find a reliable set of test > subjects who really ARE enlightened. IF you keep the > result to "just data" and don't try to extrapolate > from the data to justify some Bronze Age dogma. I am not sure why you assume that this would be the objective of such research. > > > IF it could be proved to exist, does that make it desirable? > > > Can enlightened people be sad? History, and the testimony > > > of the Supposedly Enlightened, says Yes. So where's the > > > big advantage in being enlightened? Can an enlightened > > > person be crazy? Again, history says Yes. I think the advantage to being enlightened is simply a matter of personal fulfillment. Why would an enlightened person not feel sad, or happy, or angry, or even crazy. I bet that is part of the package. > Yeah, right. The quest for knowledge is what fueled > the Inquisition, and the Holocaust, and all the wars > in history. Talk about meaningless generalizations. Right, it sounds like a meaningless generalization, but I think it happens to be true. Why do things change over time? Why have things changed over the past 2,000 years? Can you give me an answer for this? > I never said that's what I wanted. I dismiss nothing. > I merely am saying that such accounts will remain in > the future what they have been for thousands of years, > mere claims, based on unverifiable subjective experience. > And that that's the way it should be. Then so be it. But it hasn't stopped us, as a civilization from taking just about every other thing and poking it and testing it. But perhaps you are right. This will remain strictly a subjective area. > Good for you. Would a "scientific experiment" be believable > in your view if it *countered* your personal experience, > rather than supported it? Or would that experiment be > "wrong" in your view if it didn't match your experience? This is where you surprise me with your cynical edge. But yea, if I really think about it, I am sure I have some predjudices that I would have to come face to face with in that situation. On the other hand, that would be a good test. > > > So no, I don't think that science will ever pinpoint the > > > exact physiological coorelates of enlightenment. More > > > important, however, unlike the True Believers who think > > > it would be a Big Deal if they did, I think it would > > > make barely a ripple in human history. No one who hadn't > > > already bought into the idea would even care. It likely would be like most other things. If you can't monetize it then it becomes a footnote. > TMers, for one. They are the very essence of "evangelism- > based science" I am speaking about. In over 40 years they > have been unable to conduct an experiment *without* trying > to use it to sell TM. I think this area of research has grown beyond the TM org. And really, for my purposes, I am not really thinking about them when I consider this research. It was Vaj who mentioned some research in this area a few days ago. > Because there is no bottom. Okay, there is no bottom, but we still like to try to get some resolution on this or just about any other issue. > The experience was subjective to start with, and subjective > it shall remain. IMO, of course. Perhaps so.
