Thanks for keeping the rap going. I'd like to focus on a few points. > > **Yeah, again, you must provide an example here. This ooga booga > unconsciousness I don't know about. Even when I am asleep I have > self-awareness. So I don't know what it is I should be facing, according to > you, when there are no more shadows in my awareness. Expansion to discover, > of course. These unconscious shadows, no.
This is really getting to an interesting area concerning Maharishi's model of the mind and what we are now learning in neuro-science. This area interests me both theoretically as well as experientially since when I meditate I still use TM. The more interesting question is not what examples I can provide of unconscious processes, but to try to find ones that are actually driven consciously. But I'll start with your question. Find a chair in the room and take a look. What part of that process of locating and recognizing a chair, distinguishing it from other pieces of furniture was conscious for you? Did you have to consciously compare it with equally four legged tables and consciously say to yourself "it needs to have a back on it to be a chair"? Did a stool without a back throw you and you had to talk yourself into recognition of what it was through applying conscious criteria? 99. something of our mental processes are beyond our conscious awareness. Perception is way too complex to be handled consciously. And that is just our perceptions. When we entertain thoughts it is also driven unconsciously. Answer this question: " Are you a liberal or a conservative?" Did that take a lot of conscious thought? And yet the distinctions are complex. What is the square root of 212? Now your conscious mind is probably kicking in because you don't have an unconscious process for this answer. I hope this helps to understand how I am using it. As far as the sleep witnessing thing goes, does this mean that you never dream even while witnessing? In my experience just witnessing dreams does not put them under complete conscious volition. I now believe that Maharishi's source of thought pure consciousness state is just a quieter aspect of our conscious mind, which by interfacing with our unconscious in a less filtered way can allow us to be aware of some creative impulses sooner sometimes. It pays to hang out there. And there are a lot of ways to get to that place including the conscious mind overload of performance. Maharishi's model was trying to make too much out of that quiet state of the mind, we are not even close to a source of creation in transcending. It is an absurd overstatement of what meditation achieves. If he was right, people would be flying or at least long term meditators would be doing things more spectacular than what shows up in Batgap interviews. snip the obvious body point > > **The only other area you could be discussing, in terms of the "unconscious", > is emotions. This, I think has much more with forming a world view, than any > beliefs one may be using as crutches. Simple as that. If a person is > fundamentally struggling all of the time, and not meeting with success, they > will not feel great. Their world view will be affected more by immediate > circumstances and individual choices, than it ever will by their beliefs. I think we are using the terms in too different ways to come to an agreement here. In my view beliefs are not conscious and often drive emotions. For example if you have a deeply held unconscious belief that life should be easy and things in your life must be perfect, you will walk around pissed off a lot. This is the basis of Rational Emotive Therapy. Our unconscious assumptions about reality drive what we notice and what we ignore, internally and externally. > > **Beliefs are a way for the ego to sidestep authentic emotional > confrontation, within ourselves.> Can't you see that this is a statement of your beliefs? I wonder if you are conflating "beliefs" with "rationalizations"? <To look unflinchingly, silently into the mirror, and dealing with whatever reflects back has nothing to do with beliefs. It is about being instantly honest with ourselves.> The concept of "honesty" is a web of beliefs. > > **That is where I am coming from. > > > <God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent > > expression of universal compassion.> > > > > > > I am with you if you want to equate God with life itself rather than the > > creator of life. > > **How do you see the two as different? I don't believe life needs a creator to have arisen on this planet. > > Life itself is so wondrous that it deserves all the PR the idea of the > creator usurped through men's imaginations. The added value of "compassion" > seems to be an imposition of personification onto life. > > **It is not an imposition of personification on life. It IS life. Life is not > some sterile value, which takes form. It takes form out of an active interest > to explore and express itself. By showing compassion and boundless > acceptance, it continues to grow and expand. Can't you see how many beliefs you just expressed in that paragraph? > > As far as I can tell, this is a product of our lives as social primates, and > doesn't play a big role in the vastness of life forms on the planet. I am a > fan, but that is because I am human, not because there is a value of it > existing beyond my human choices. > > **All of the creatures don't have media outlets, but they show compassion > towards one another all of the time, though it is never reported. History is > written by the victors. I don't know of one instance where one family of > creatures, assembled and went to war, against another group of creatures, > organized with the single intent of slaughter. Except for us humans. I don't > think we can judge jack shit about compassion, using ourselves as an example. > > Then you could benefit by some animal behavior research. Check out chimpanzee wars, the territorial behavior of big cats, wolves, bears, predatory fish, orca whales, legions of insects...the list goes on and on. "Nature is red in tooth and claw" is a more accurate way to view all of nature. There are small examples of self serving groups who band together like humans, but often act ruthlessly with each other in both animal and human societies. snip > **Perhaps you can show me how a disbelief in God has greatly benefited you, > today, NOW. Like I said, beliefs are for the dead, the unconscious. It seems impossible for me to explain the difference between seeing God concepts as aspects of human created mythology and an active state of "disbelief". But I can express how my current view of the idea benefits me. A belief in God as more than an idea created by man requires the support of poor reasons. Getting used to believing things for poor reasons makes it seem as if we can never find any solidity in our beliefs supported by good ones. Discovering the flaws in my thinking that lead me out of theism was the most enlightening intellectual achievement of my life. (With the possible exception of realizing that Guru Dev was a charmingly eccentric hobo.) It allowed me to be more honest with all sorts of beliefs that I held for poor reasons including many involved with health. It has lead me to a more humble position with regard to what I "know" and I now have a more nuanced view of probabilities rather than hard facts that steer my life. I understand the limits of human knowledge and am suspicious of surety. I study the flaws in my cognitive processes to help avoid some of them sometimes. But there are always there. Beyond that, not having a belief in a living God, opened me to the beautiful world of appreciating religious beliefs as a form of art. I can enjoy the images of Christ or Shiva as much as anyone can of the artistic value of the Greek gods. So I am still fascinated by religion, but more as a view into man's internal desires and fears. Scripture is fascinating human historical literature, not a blueprint for human life. Religion is no less profound seeing it through this lens. snip > > **That's just weird. A noble savage doesn't operate with success in the > modern world, nor form comprehensive relationships with people all over the > world. A very poor comparison, indeed. It is the common philosophical term for innocent perception theory. It also applies to beliefs that man is by nature good and if left in a natural state un-impinged upon by society, he would live in a perpetual Grateful Dead tailgate party. Maharishi's teaching had more than a little of this view embedded. > > snip > > > **Just going by experience. I really don't think deciding that black is > white, or up is down, is going to help me pay my taxes this year. Or help put > my daughter through school, or tune up my car, or weed the yard. Nor sure about his point. The Mona Lisa wont help you weed your garden either, but it still have a value. > > So, if you need the burden of belief to make your world go 'round, I accept > that, but I don't need the extra weight, thanks. I am busy enough, without > beliefs. Thanks for stating your belief so succinctly. Great rap! >
