"This is compared to [Judy's] nemesis Barry who was not only certified to teach it, but promoted through the ranks to supervise other teacher's presentation of the programs."
Your statement above, Curtis, is both disingenuous, and pretty arrogant. Doesn't begin to approach the standards of your much vaunted science-y approach. Here's da fax, jack: Judy's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - Daily practice x 2 = 31,390 sessions since 1970. Barry's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - Daily practice x 2 = ZERO sessions since 1970. ZERO TM by Barry in the last *43* years, vs. thirty one thousand, three hundred and ninety TM sessions by Judy, and yet, you continue to hold up Barry, as THE EXPERT? Now, perhaps you see what I mean about belief (which is all your stance on Barry's TM expertise is based on), being unhelpful in a current assessment of reality. Barry may be the most prolific bullshitter on here regarding what he thinks about TM, etc. but despite your supposed focus on how to validate knowledge, it is plainly obvious to the rest of us, that given his complete absence of experience with TM over the last four and a half decades, he does not *know* what he is talking about. Literally. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn" <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Excellent response Emily. There is some meat on this bone. > > > > EM: Nice of you to say Curtis. More than a quick quip, but not much more. > > I know little about meditation states and I am an escape artist, when it > > comes to reality. Probably one reason why I like FFL - it serves up so > > many differing viewpoints on the topic and I can laugh my way through the > > absurdities of existence. But, I intend for the decade that is my 50's to > > go differently than the one that was my 40's. A few comments below: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Curtis, I always enjoy what you write - creative writer that you are. > > > > > > > > And, in terms of your POV - I am but a babe in the woods re: your topic > > > > and I do not have an answer to your question.  In the past I have > > > > used meditation to relax and to forgive one of my ex-boyfriends (i.e. > > > > the loving kindness, "may all beings be happy" buddhist meditation.) > > > > > > Seems like a pretty practical benefit to me. Reprogramming feelings is > > > no small thing. Chalk one up for meditation works! I never did it in > > > such a specific context, but I am sure you represent a lot of people who > > > find meditation useful this way. I am more and more interested in the > > > Buddhist style because so much of the latest positive research is about > > > those styles. I know very little about them so far and have only had a > > > little self taught experience with them. > > > > EM: I know little about any of them, but I am pursuing the idea of > > operating from a different place within myself and learning a practice that > > allows or encourages that, practically speaking. My real self, I guess, > > the part that hides deep down; the part I protect with layers and layers of > > bullshit and ego. For example, perhaps drawing has resulted in you > > discovering different parts of yourself you can then "see" more clearly. I > > don't follow instructions well, don't follow others' and don't join groups. > > But, I'm currently reviewing my suspicious nature and inherent prejudices > > and defiant attitudes and understanding of my ego in relation to the larger > > picture. I'm not looking to be blissed out - I already know how to do > > that, both positively and negatively. Smile. > > > > Sound like a worthy endeavor. I am struck by your use of the term "ego". You > seem to have already accepted a common spiritual view that it somehow blocks > something. I'd just like to point out that not only is this view of yourself > optional, for me, it was counterproductive. This is a nonstandard view of the > ego from mainstream psychology, and creates a weird self against itself > model. Other than people who are obviously egotistical (which often means > they have a low sense of self paradoxically) the idea of our self identity as > a block seems counterproductive to a unified sense of yourself. YMMV of > course, perhaps this term helps you understand something. But it is a loaded > web of beliefs about how we operate internally is what I want to point out. > It seems to me to come from a language of dissociation which I believe is > common from spiritual practices. > > > > > > > > > <  It worked.  But, I lack self-discipline and am a self-centered > > > loner.  And, I am also a spinster (in more ways than one), so don't > > > take anything I say too seriously.  Smile.> > > > > > > I would never do that to you. (take you too seriously) Please return the > > > favor. > > > > EM: Ha. I'm teasing. Of course, I will return the favor. I seldom take > > anyone on FFL too seriously, although I've most certainly been triggered my > > fair share of times. I ultimately look at it as a learning experience, > > really, and an opportunity to examine my internal landscape. > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm..for the first part...'How do we know that meditation states are > > > > better able to experience reality?"  Is "better" the right word here? > > > > If you rephrased the sentence to switch it out for the word > > > > "differently" - the question would be easier. > > > > > > I think ultimately I agree with your switch, but that is not how > > > traditional meditations pitch what they are accomplishing. They are > > > making ultimate ontological claims about how the world REALLY is. > > > > EM: Without weighing in on the veracity of your statements (because I am > > ignorant in the matter),> > > Terms like Maharishi's "supreme knowledge" verses "Maya" or illusion are the > proof. > > > < I think I object to the word "better" because there is inherent judgement > in it. Better than what? > > > In most spiritual traditions that I know about enlightenment is pitted > against ignorance of the true reality of life. This view is foisted on > societies by priestly classes who are attempting to establish their power in > society. They mean their view is better, more true. They have it, you don't. > > < Better than understanding and experiencing reality without different states > achieved through meditation? I believe meditation can bring clarity to > situations; can reduce the ego chatter and emotional drama that sometimes > *feels* like reality, subjectively, of course. > > I think you are approaching these systems from a pretty balanced modern view. > There is no reason to buy into their assumptions of superior perspective > because they claim it. > > > > > > My perception of reality shifts often and I note how my physiological > > makeup and mental and emotional states influence my perceptions (it can be > > quite exhausting, honestly) and how my perceptions are affected by external > > events. In Utah this summer and also at the beach, I was so enveloped in > > awe and connection to the Universe as a part of, it was staggering - but it > > was made easy by having few people to interact with and spending days and > > days outside in the elements and landscape. When I swim, it calms down my > > nervous system and I relax significantly and my perception of reality > > shifts; I'm usually out of mental and emotional chaos. Swimming reduces > > sensory input, for one, and requires paced breathing. And, of course, it > > releases endorphins. :) But, I can't spend all my time in the water. > > [Although I am a Scorpio and I do love water and do wish I could be in it > > every day. But, in my intelligence, I realize the definition of Scorpio as > > a water sign I've read on the Hallmark card probably isn't a good basis for > > statement of truth about my nature.] > > > Exercise and nature are great state shifters. For me too. BTW passive > relaxation like meditation makes some people more tense,it isn't for > everyone. > > > > > > > > > But as far as seeing the states of meditation as different rather than > > > better, I think that is honestly what we really know about them divorced > > > from the enthusiastic PR of their traditions. Starting from this basis > > > we have a chance to learn their place better I believe. So I agree with > > > your switch of emphasis and think it is more realistic. > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > How are you defining "reality?"  The world you encounter as governed > > > > by the laws of physics?  The reality of being Curtis, no matter where > > > > you are?  The reality of experiencing the larger planet/world > > > > physically, sensually, emotionally, intuitively?  Is this a "we can't > > > > know" thing because reality is/can be a subjective experience?"  Or is > > > > reality a "what is, is" and the question is whether meditation gives > > > > one a leg up on accepting and dealing with that?. > > > > > > I am not an epistemological relativist. > > > > EM: I had to look that up, of course. Here is a definition off the > > internet: > > > > Epistemological relativism is the view that truth and falsity are relative; > > in other words, no statements are "objectively" true or false. Truth is > > relative to a person or a culture. An epistemological relativist denies > > that anything at all can be known. According to hard core epistemological > > relativism, everything is a matter of opinion, including science. > > Naturally, anyone who is an epistemological relativist is also an ethical > > relativist. > > > > Ethical relativism is the view that morality is relative. An ethical > > relativist restricts relativism to ethical matters; an ethical relativist > > might not be an epistemological relativist. For example, an ethical > > relativist might accept the possibility of scientific truth but deny the > > possibility of truth in ethics. > > > > I do believe that there is an actual world out there. And I am working > > through our humman limitations on how to know about it. There are too many > > levels of perception you are hitting on to sum it all up. As I re-read > > what you wrote I think you are articulating something profound that I will > > sum up as mystery. We live surrounded inside and outside with mystery. > > > > EM: I agree with this (not me being profound, but the mystery statement.) > > > > I see traditional systems as an attempt to define that mystery within their > > POV. I believe it is premature to buy into that. Not to ignore their > > input, but not jump the gun and interpret inner experience of altered > > states within their framework. I think we are babies at this and many > > people act like they don't know this. Altered states may not be higher > > states at all. > > > > EM: Perhaps this take is what Judy disagrees with. Is there an inherent > > assumption here that altered states are higher states? > > Maharishi views the states achieved through meditation as higher not altered > states. Calling them altered states and not giving them their assumptive > superiority bothers many TM people as it would have bothered me when I was > inside the belief system. > > > < What do you mean by "altered" states and "higher" states? If I swim and > come back "grounded" and "in my body," I am in an altered state from the > physically and mentally stressed (brain moving too fast, for example) state I > began with. I don't see it as a "higher" state, but it is certainly a state > I prefer and I absolutely make "better" decisions for myself in such a state. > > I don't have a view that includes "higher states" as a useful term anymore. > I believe that some states of mind are more appropriate for different tasks. > I view the shifted states from your usual internal stasis as versions of > trance states and am still figuring out which ones are useful for what > activities. One of my favorite altered state is the one we go into to drive. > I have some of my most creatively generative moments while driving. I think > somehow the way it forces my mind into paying attention to the road allows me > to get as something deeper in my creativity. I now carry a recorder and have > written songs and had some great mental writing sessions driving. > > > > > > > > > Of course there are also many levels of our inner life that is just what > > > I call the art of our lives. > > > > EM: "The art of our lives...." I like that. > > > > That is a free field-day and I am not interested in quantifying us or of > > any of the surprises from that area of our creativity. That may or may not > > really do justice to the questions you raised, but I will re-read it again > > tomorrow to see what else I have missed from reading it. Thought provoking > > to be sure. > > > > > > < And, you aren't limiting your question to TM are you? > > > > > > > Not anymore. But most of my mystical experiences happened within that > > > context and I was so into that model of evaluating subjective experience > > > that it still affects how I view things. This is not all a positive but > > > it gives me a launching pad. > > > > > > TM was a very regimented system in how we were trained in a vocabulary > > > for how to express our experiences. At first this was very exhilarating > > > and allowed us to share our inner lives with a shared word and phrase > > > group. But now I see it as a limited language of groups like TM, > > > providing more emotional experience of understanding something due to > > > pattern recognition instead of actually, deeply thinking about how to > > > express inner experience outside the buzz words. So I am at once > > > handicapped by my experience and positively affected by having taken it > > > all so far that I realize that mystical subjective experience is > > > something interesting. But not necessarily in the way that the groups > > > think of it. > > > > EM: Interesting. Judy may disagree with you here also - but I don't know > > for sure, as it is outside my realm of experience. Smiley face. > > Judy's view of what I write is too agenda driven to be a reliable reflection > of what I am talking about. Frowny face. > > Although she has created a visible online association with the TM teaching > through so much time posting, her actual exposure to Maharishi's teaching was > relatively superficial, never having gone through the certification necessary > to represent his teaching to the public. This is compared to her nemesis > Barry who was not only certified to teach it, but promoted through the ranks > to supervise other teacher's presentation of the programs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That was excellent, please hit the ball back if you feel like it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > >________________________________ > > > > > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@> > > > > >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > >Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:16 PM > > > > >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Take two:Everything below is my POV > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So after the wave of drama I am back contemplating what the value is > > > > >of the different states of mind produced and cultivated by meditation. > > > > > (Emily please cover your ears.) > > > > > > > > > >Meditation is pleasurable on its own even without any benefits. > > > > >Pleasurable experiences need no further justification. It produces a > > > > >"high" and that feeling can linger. I still question the value of > > > > >some of the more intense peak experiences since it is basically as > > > > >content free as a hit of something from the opiate group, which is not > > > > >surprising because neurotransmitters are the bodies inner opiates. > > > > >And getting all fulfilled-up, divorced from any achievement more than > > > > >a cat lying on the same pillow to warm it couldn't accomplish seems a > > > > >bit dubious to me. I guess it is a matter of how much time is devoted > > > > >to this feel good state of mind. The question of it producing > > > > >something else is still up in the air for me. > > > > > > > > > >I believe for some people there is an effect of meditation making them > > > > >more thoughtful, however I would add that naturally thoughtful people > > > > >can become more detached and dissociated from their feelings. I don't > > > > >see the kind of mental enhancements that Maharishi tried to claim. > > > > >The TMers were a self-selected higher educated, higher income group to > > > > >start, but other than that seem fairly ordinary to slightly more naive > > > > >about claims than most people I interact with. They tend to trust > > > > >their inner feelings about objective things and that gives many of > > > > >them a bit of over-gullible dopiness. So I can't see that long term > > > > >use of meditation has brought much in the way of benefits mentally or > > > > >creatively. People who are naturally creative continue to be as they > > > > >meditate, even as they attribute it to their practice, and boring > > > > >people who are not creative are just as dull with the additional > > > > >annoyance of seeming pretty pleased with themselves internally for no > > > > obvious reason. > > > > > > > > > >The biggest claim from the perspective of these traditions is that > > > > >they are opening up the mind to a more unvarnished direct experience > > > > >of "reality". I think this seems a bit dubious and seems overly > > > > >dependent on the interpretation from old traditions that were as full > > > > >of superstition as any insight into man's condition. But that is the > > > > >deepest reason to do a lot of mind altering meditation, the > > > > >combination with the belief that this experience means certain things. > > > > > > > > > >I'm just gunna toss off the Mahariahi/Heglin physics angle as a > > > > >metaphor gone awry and marketing silliness and not worth considering. > > > > >I will include Maharishi's own standard of test of sidhi performance > > > > >to indicate that something didn't work out as predicted. Either it is > > > > >really NOT the field of all possibilities or TM and sidhis aren't > > > > >getting people to that level. The experiment has been going on a bit > > > > >long so if the movement wont call this one, I will. > > > > > > > > > >But other sincere Yoga believers maintain that the state of mind > > > > >reached in meditation and the state they cultivate allows them to see > > > > >the truth of existence which corresponds not coincidentally with > > > > >whatever ontological metaphysics the group they associate with buys > > > > >into. And with the vagueness of the language used to describe these > > > > >states combined with the abstract non sensory nature of most of these > > > > >POVs, we have an untestable loop of belief feeding the experience its > > > > >meaning. > > > > > > > > > >So it seems to come down to faith in the system's meaning assignment. > > > > >And I know that there will be much hue and cry that in fact it is all > > > > >experienced and not just believed, but that doesn't seem to included > > > > >an understanding of how conception shapes our perceptions. Especially > > > > >in an area with so much floaty altered states involved. I just don't > > > > >believe the conditions are present for reliable knowledge reporting. > > > > >So if you believe in the system's view of ultimate reality, you will > > > > >get a nice dose of that experience. But you have really no way to > > > > >verify its validity because it is all subjective. And our brains > > > > >definitely have the ability to serve up a version of everything being > > > > >one or whatever other version of unitive experience you want to trot > > > > >out. Been there. > > > > > > > > > >When a Christian says he EXPERIENCES being born again into the loving > > > > >salvation of his Lord, that he is living in a state beyond mere > > > > >belief, he is on the exact same epistemological sand trap as the yogi > > > > >who claims that his inner experience is the real real,seriously dude, > > > > >I'm talking realest, experience of reality. And in the end it is the > > > > >feeling good that is probably the driving force accompanied by a > > > > >distinct lack of interest in pushing further into the discussion of > > > > >"how do we know this". > > > > > > > > > >But that is where I am. I don't see anything persuasive as an > > > > >argument in favor of believing that people who claim higher states are > > > > >any more in tune with reality than the rest of us. With all the > > > > >obvious wackiness from many of these people I think they support a > > > > >better case for self-delusion, or at best a sort of benign > > > > >overestimation of one's real wisdom. > > > > > > > > > >And I know that those into this will dismiss my "ignorance" and see > > > > >this POV as indicating a flaw in me. I am fine with that. But I am > > > > >an unenlightened guy and this is a legitimate question I am proposing. > > > > >I would think someone coming from and enlightened viewpoint could at > > > > >least present a case that would satisfy me without having me first > > > > >drink the cool-aid of belief first. I got my ticket punched, had the > > > > >unitive experiences and am still left with the legitimate question: > > > > > > > > > >How do we know that meditaiton states are better able to experience > > > > >reality, and how could we know if this was true? > > > > > > > > > >Emily take your hands off your ears now. > > > > > > > > > >The above writing was an expression of my POV, and you can verify this > > > > >because it has my name at the top. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
