---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote :
Yes again to what you say. I think my differentiation between "a loss of sense of self" versus "overcoming selfish behaviour" is reflected in the difference between traditions like Zen which highlight that instant zap of satori versus Christian tradition which emphasizes a long-term practice of self-discipline. They are not ultimately in conflict. The Zen monk who has a sudden awakening would then allow that insight to gradually percolate into his life over time and alter his old patterns of behaviour. The Christian pilgrim hopefully eliminates much selfish conditioning and is finally rewarded at the end with a "mystical" vision. Yes, I see your point. As long as the "sudden awakening" isn't assumed to be the end-goal, when in likelihood, it is just probably a "call to action" of one sort or another. (Just guessing here). Also, I don't know that the reward for the for working on one's self-centered nature as human being in the Christian tradition is necessarily a "mystical" vision, but perhaps just a happier, more fulfilled, life. Each approach has something to recommend it and each has its own specific dangers. Perhaps the kind of traumatic events you refer to (the death of a loved one, say) can be better absorbed by someone on the Christian path. I can't say. I think cultural context plays a big role. As they say, "there are many paths to awareness." :) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emily.mae50@...> wrote : Hence why it could be true that an "ego-loss" trip doesn't bring emotional maturity or relational ability and may, in fact, impede it. And, hence, why the "flash" of any spiritual experience or sudden awareness doesn't eliminate (in virtually all cases) what is usually painful work to realize any real change within that can be evidenced in a change in behavior and approach towards people and life. Existential crisis or difficult circumstances where one loses a close loved one, or suffers a life-changing injury or illness or financial ruin on a large scale or other "disasters" are often required for some to really take a look at the nature of one's self-centeredness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Re "First there was an increase in a sense of abstract self, kind of like being empty space, a very inward experience. However the abstract nature of it is not the sense of self that ego is.": Yes. But to supplement what you are saying, I think there is often a confusion between, on the one hand, a "loss of sense of self" - which relates to our persona/identity/ego - and, on the other hand, overcoming our "character" traits which are built up by our habits. You can have "spiritual" experiences in which you completely lose any sense of personal identity but you still carry on behaving in much the same way as before as your conditioning is still functioning in the background. That is why many people who have had a genuine ego-loss trip mistakenly believe they are now enlightened, whereas the really tough part of awakening (overcoming our self-centred behaviours) is a more long-term and painful process. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : Lawson, I think this is 'incorrect'. My experience from practising TM exclusively until very recently had the following effects: First there was an increase in a sense of abstract self, kind of like being empty space, a very inward experience. However the abstract nature of it is not the sense of self that ego is. It is more like you become inner awareness only, there is a break with the ego sense of self. The sense of self that one experiences in total ignorance is not what is strengthened. Maybe if you are a narcissist and you believe that is what's happening, the ego sense of self gets a rush out of that, and uses that to foster its self love. Even without being a narcissist, the sense of ego still dominates the mind just as before, just that awareness is felt to be separate from it. So if you were a prick in waking, you can still be a prick in CC. Following the abstract sense of inner 'self' being established, that fades away and the sense of space moves into the environment, almost invisibly. The contrast of inner and outer diminishes until, one day, whatever you were as an ego is gone as the centre of the mind's conceptual experience, it shifts to a peripheral role and being takes the centre stage, not as the centre of experience, because it has no centre or location; it is equally inside and outside as every aspect of life, and it is impersonal, it is not individuality or self-like by any means. This is what TM did to me. Now though, mindfulness is quite nice to practise because basically that is what is happening experientially anyway. For me I felt TM was superior at the starting gate, I tried mindfulness but did not like it then, but my sense of individuality at that time might be different from someone else's, after all those kinds of differences are the hallmark of individuality. So your analysis, I think, is just semantics recast as an actual difference. The same thing happens either way, with mindfulness or TM, but I think a lot of people would prefer TM at the beginning. Both techniques have proven successful. At the end, either way, everything is what 'you' are but it is kind of misleading to call it a 'self': that is the language of a particular time and place. Using the word 'self' is less threatening to the sense one is an ego, than the term 'no-self'. 'Self' is how you can look at it from the starting gate, and no-self is how the same thing looks from the finish line. A friend of mind once taught a young woman TM. Here first experience was 'there was just nothing', and nothing is a stretch to call 'self'. The association with the word 'self' is assured if that is the only terminology you use. But one has a choice of conceptual models with which to interpret experience because none of them are really true, they are metaphors to help the mind navigate new experiences. Advaita vendanta is also no-self, but uses the Vedic/Hindu terminology of self. I think it's a crappy word to use, but it is traditional, and it appeals to individual pride. In my case, TM also disrupted the sense of self, because all you really are is awareness; the idea you are a self at the beginning and all the way through was a lie to begin with, so it is a terminology you can easily dispense with at some point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : With respect to mindfulness practices, it is becoming more and more accepted by the scientific community that they disrupt brain mechanisms responsible for sense-of-self. Conversely, it is becoming more and more established that TM's main [perhaps only universally consistent] effect is to strengthen--and make abstract--sense-of-self. This means that given the interpretation of the Buddha's teachings concerning "not-self," mindfulness invariably leads to a [modern, Wesetern] Buddhist orientation towards life, literally on a physiological level. Likewise, TM's strengthening of sense-of-self can be seen to physically support the _advaita vedanta_ variety advocated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, again literally on a physiological level. This last is hardly surprising as it was Maharishi's stated intent to introduce a single universal technique--TM--that would encapsulate the whole of his guru's _advait vedanta_ teachings. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Xeno: Mindfulness meditation pretty much has successfully been divorced from its religious roots, unlike TM, but it is interesting if you get right into what meditation is really about, it is difficult to avoid some kind of religious thinking or thinking that runs parallel to religious ideas. If you read Sam Harris' latest book, even though he is a non-theist, a neuroscientist, he was unable to not mention something of Buddhism, rather frequently. As soon as you start believing the mental constructs surrounding meditation, or believing mental constructs you make up yourself to explain it to yourself or others, you begin to slip into religious territory. There is something of an invisible ghost in the works when you get down to the ultimate value of meditation As long as you just have a testable hypothesis and that is how you always regard it, you might be safe from being in, or creating a religion. This is well stated. But I believe(!) that there is always 'an invisible ghost' there somewhere, working in the background, if you work with religious concepts or not. That is, and I know that I have some strong opposition here, also for atheists and non-theists, as it is impossible to be without any conditioning. To 'be without conditioning' is btw just another spiritual concept. In all of this, I smell some sense of puristic spirit. Where does it come from? May be from the initiators of the 'age of aufklärung (enlightenment)' like Kant etc., who clearly improved our civilisation. And earlier than this, there is iconoclast reformatory movement of Martin Luther, a predecessor of all revolutions. Everything we know, supported by science or not, is always in our mind, and much of the fundamental conditioning of the mind is not seen. If you are free from the mind, in the sense of non-attachment, you may hold any number of spiritual concepts in your mind, but you are only partially identified with the mind itself. So it comes back to the same old, being free means being detached, IMO. If you know this, you may adopt the concepts that serve you best, knowing well their relativity. I am not talking of a scientist here, but of normal human beings. Scientists will of course adopt theories, which explain their data best.
