[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
TurquoiseB wrote: Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. The people can feel each of their *intents*, and are reacting accordingly. Judy wrote: Actually in many cases they're projecting intents on both candidates. When these folks hear that a candidate's own minister has spewed anti-American, racial diatribes, it deeply disturbs them. Even before the Wright story broke, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Hillary Clinton supporter, suggested that race would cost Obama about 5 percentage points in that state's primary next month. Read more: 'It will take more than one great speech for Obama to reassure some Democrats' By Albert R. Hunt International Herald-Tribune, March 23, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/yoat4b
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Fiske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 What I found most fascinating and uplifting about the talk was that it DIDN'T tie in with any pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the feeling that she learned of these terms and these concepts *after* having experienced what she did, in an attempt to understand them. As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends to hide the expansive, non-local right brain. It's like the left brain is a worrywart, and nags and talks all the time, while the right brain is more Rastafarian. Ja, mon...I hear what you be sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy. I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Fiske fiskedavid@ wrote: Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 What I found most fascinating and uplifting about the talk was that it DIDN'T tie in with any pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the feeling that she learned of these terms and these concepts *after* having experienced what she did, in an attempt to understand them. As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends to hide the expansive, non-local right brain. It's like the left brain is a worrywart, and nags and talks all the time, while the right brain is more Rastafarian. Ja, mon...I hear what you be sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy. I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-) Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Fiske fiskedavid@ wrote: Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 What I found most fascinating and uplifting about the talk was that it DIDN'T tie in with any pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the feeling that she learned of these terms and these concepts *after* having experienced what she did, in an attempt to understand them. As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends to hide the expansive, non-local right brain. It's like the left brain is a worrywart, and nags and talks all the time, while the right brain is more Rastafarian. Ja, mon...I hear what you be sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy. I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-) Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...when are you going to understand that samadhi cannot possibly be defined by research? All that the researchers can ever possibly do is to attempt to track and find physical coorelates of a non-physical subjective experience. They are Wile E. Coyotes chasing a roadrunner they will never catch. At best they can catch glimpses of the roadrunner and try to measure the piles of dust as he says Beep Beep and runs away. The scientists in ALL of the research on meditation are GUESSING, dude. They're measuring people who are meditating and they're searching for something -- anything -- out of the ordinary. And of course they're going to think that those out of the ordin- ary things that they find are coorelates of samadhi. But are they? Some of the things that Wallace believed were the definitors of higher states of consciousness when he did his experiments have been shown not to be. I would expect that ALL of the things found so far will be found to be just as non-definitive. I -- unlike you and your belief in MMY's idea that there IS a physiological coorelate to everything spiritual -- do not believe that scientists will EVER be able to define samadhi or enlightenment physically. The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. That's just the way things work in this cartoon universe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. That's just the way things work in this cartoon universe. Actually, there was one exception. If the roadrunner is enlightenment and Wile E. Coyote is the seeker, there WAS one moment in which he transcended the laws of this cartoon universe and realized his dream. He *caught* the roadrunner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk This is a potent metaphor for how close I think scientists are ever going to get to defining samadhi and enlightenment. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-) Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...when are you going to understand that samadhi cannot possibly be defined by research? Lawson didn't say defined by TM research, he said defined IN TM research. All that the researchers can ever possibly do is to attempt to track and find physical coorelates of a non-physical subjective experience. Which is, of course, what Lawson is referring to: physical correlates of reports of a subjective experience. They are Wile E. Coyotes chasing a roadrunner they will never catch. At best they can catch glimpses of the roadrunner and try to measure the piles of dust as he says Beep Beep and runs away. The scientists in ALL of the research on meditation are GUESSING, dude. They're measuring people who are meditating and they're searching for something -- anything -- out of the ordinary. And of course they're going to think that those out of the ordin- ary things that they find are coorelates of samadhi. But are they? Actually, what they're searching for is the physical correlates of reports of the experience by their subjects. Did you really think they just looked at the EEG tracings, found an unusual pattern, and labeled it samadhi? Not incidentally, it's very similar to the way scientists have studied dreaming. They hook the subjects up to the EEG and other measurement devices, have them go to sleep, wake them up at intervals, and ask them if they were dreaming. Then they look at the measurements from the instruments to see if there are distinct patterns correlated with subjective reports of having been dreaming. Some of the things that Wallace believed were the definitors of higher states of consciousness when he did his experiments have been shown not to be. I would expect that ALL of the things found so far will be found to be just as non-definitive. I -- unlike you and your belief in MMY's idea that there IS a physiological coorelate to everything spiritual -- do not believe that scientists will EVER be able to define samadhi or enlightenment physically. Just the way scientists have never been able to define dreaming physically, eh? Barry, before you do any more criticism of TM research, it would be a good idea for you to acquire some understanding of what is actually involved in that research.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Turq, Turq, Turq, that is a totally excellent understanding of the roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate my next poem to you for that one. When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, I thought What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq? Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some wiling fool to bet with cause the odds were astronomically in my favor. While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to suggest that she's right with some, though by no means all, of her objections. And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Even so, of course, there was absolutely no need for her final paragraph in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal attack by means of a generalization about your supposed inability to understand research. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. That's just the way things work in this cartoon universe. Actually, there was one exception. If the roadrunner is enlightenment and Wile E. Coyote is the seeker, there WAS one moment in which he transcended the laws of this cartoon universe and realized his dream. He *caught* the roadrunner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk This is a potent metaphor for how close I think scientists are ever going to get to defining samadhi and enlightenment. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Fiske fiskedavid@ wrote: Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 What I found most fascinating and uplifting about the talk was that it DIDN'T tie in with any pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the feeling that she learned of these terms and these concepts *after* having experienced what she did, in an attempt to understand them. As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends to hide the expansive, non-local right brain. It's like the left brain is a worrywart, and nags and talks all the time, while the right brain is more Rastafarian. Ja, mon...I hear what you be sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy. I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-) Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...when are you going to understand that samadhi cannot possibly be defined by research? It was a poorly worded phrase. Judy's made a stab at clarifying, and I'll reword: The TM research on people who report transcendental consciousness finds that their self- reports come seconds after the brain returns to a more normal mode of functioning from a mode of higher inter-hemispheric EEG coherence in the frontal lobes of the brain. IOW, they might press a button to indicate: that was TC! and by the time they press the button, their brain is functioning normally, but *just before* they press the button, their brain is in a different state and it's a state where the right and left frontal lobes are more in-tune with each other. The frontal lobes, btw, are where science usually locates our sense of identity or self. In TMers, IOW, reports of the samadhi state are associated with the hemispheres of the brain being in balance. So the suggestion that one part of the brain is dominating during samadhi don't hold true for TMers. HOWEVER, in some Buddhist meditations, there IS an imbalance in the brain hemispheres that shows up: the intellectual side dominates. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, Turq, Turq, that is a totally excellent understanding of the roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate my next poem to you for that one. When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, I thought What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq? Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some wiling fool to bet with cause the odds were astronomically in my favor. While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to suggest that she's right with some, though by no means all, of her objections. Actually I made only one objection, Angela. But why don't you expand a bit and tell us what you all my objections were, along with your considered opinion about which were right and which weren't, and why? And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Er, no, I was confirming that his intention was correct while pointing out that it was entirely in line with what Lawson was saying. Barry thought he was *criticizing* Lawson, because Barry does not understand either what Lawson was saying, or how the TM researchers study samadhi. If you disagree, why don't you tell us what you think Barry's intention was? Even so, of course, there was absolutely no need for her final paragraph in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal attack by means of a generalization about your supposed inability to understand research. I've been telling Barry for some time that he needs to pay some attention to what the research actually involves before sounding off on it, because he virtually always gets it all fouled up. Oh, and don't bother to hold onto your ringside seat, because Barry won't be responding to my post (at least not substantively).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Well, no, Judy, I'm not gonna explain stuff; I prefer to wait for Turq's comments. On the other hand, look at your phrasing: Turq needs to... Listen to people who use this phrase or some variant: You need to... Who are you to say what other people need to do or to understand etc? More likely that you need them to do or understand. Turq, I'm sure has no such need as you impute to him, albeit perhaps unconsciously. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, Turq, Turq, that is a totally excellent understanding of the roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate my next poem to you for that one. When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, I thought What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq? Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some wiling fool to bet with cause the odds were astronomically in my favor. While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to suggest that she's right with some, though by no means all, of her objections. Actually I made only one objection, Angela. But why don't you expand a bit and tell us what you all my objections were, along with your considered opinion about which were right and which weren't, and why? And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Er, no, I was confirming that his intention was correct while pointing out that it was entirely in line with what Lawson was saying. Barry thought he was *criticizing* Lawson, because Barry does not understand either what Lawson was saying, or how the TM researchers study samadhi. If you disagree, why don't you tell us what you think Barry's intention was? Even so, of course, there was absolutely no need for her final paragraph in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal attack by means of a generalization about your supposed inability to understand research. I've been telling Barry for some time that he needs to pay some attention to what the research actually involves before sounding off on it, because he virtually always gets it all fouled up. Oh, and don't bother to hold onto your ringside seat, because Barry won't be responding to my post (at least not substantively). Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, no, Judy, I'm not gonna explain stuff; I prefer to wait for Turq's comments. No, I didn't think you'd be able to explain yourself. On the other hand, look at your phrasing: Turq needs to... Listen to people who use this phrase or some variant: You need to... Who are you to say what other people need to do or to understand etc? I'm not the least bit surprised to find you believe people don't need to know what they're talking about before they spout off, Angela.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Judy, several unwarranted assumptions: Unwilling and unable are not equivalent. People may need to know, but that is not the same as saying to Turq, You need towhatever. I'm disappointed: you're smart enough not to make those errors. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, no, Judy, I'm not gonna explain stuff; I prefer to wait for Turq's comments. No, I didn't think you'd be able to explain yourself. On the other hand, look at your phrasing: Turq needs to... Listen to people who use this phrase or some variant: You need to... Who are you to say what other people need to do or to understand etc? I'm not the least bit surprised to find you believe people don't need to know what they're talking about before they spout off, Angela. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, several unwarranted assumptions: Unwilling and unable are not equivalent. Right. That's why I said you would be unable, rather than merely unwilling, to explain yourself. People may need to know, but that is not the same as saying to Turq, You need towhatever. Right, it's not the same. The latter is a specific instance of the former. I'm disappointed: you're smart enough not to make those errors. But I agreed that you were correct in both instances above. How then can you claim I made errors?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, Turq, Turq, that is a totally excellent understanding of the roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate my next poem to you for that one. It's not my metaphor. I stole that one from the Rama - Frederick Lenz guy I studied with for so long. It just knocked my socks off the first time I heard it, and does to this day. One of my Road Trip Mind stories was about this wonderful metaphor, and my real-life encounter with a real roadrunner. I still have the stuffed Wile E. Coyote spoken about in the story. He sits up on one of my bookcases look- ing down at me as I write this. http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm27.html When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, I thought What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq? Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some wiling fool to bet with cause the odds were astronomically in my favor. How could you expect anything less. Or, more sadly, more? Two of my best friends have a saying about a third friend we have in common. He's a sweet guy at heart, but has some...uh... ego issues. ( He produced the film What the bleep... ) Their saying is, We love Bill, but he never fails to disappoint. While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to suggest that she's right with some, though by no means all, of her objections. Being in a fiesta mood, I will agree with you. And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five for seeing. I think the root cause is that she is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- ecially her own. Even so, of course, there was absolutely no need for her final paragraph in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal attack by means of a generalization about your supposed inability to understand research. Get used to it. I have. It's not going to change. Because that would mean that Judy has changed. And I think we all know by now that *that* is never going to be allowed to happen. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. That's just the way things work in this cartoon universe. Actually, there was one exception. If the roadrunner is enlightenment and Wile E. Coyote is the seeker, there WAS one moment in which he transcended the laws of this cartoon universe and realized his dream. He *caught* the roadrunner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk This is a potent metaphor for how close I think scientists are ever going to get to defining samadhi and enlightenment. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: snip And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five for seeing. I think the root cause is that she is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- ecially her own. But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and (b) he's no more able than Angela to explain how I missed his intention.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Thanks, for the link, Turq, I'll want to read more stories. The roadrunner story was a great read. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, Turq, Turq, that is a totally excellent understanding of the roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate my next poem to you for that one. It's not my metaphor. I stole that one from the Rama - Frederick Lenz guy I studied with for so long. It just knocked my socks off the first time I heard it, and does to this day. One of my Road Trip Mind stories was about this wonderful metaphor, and my real-life encounter with a real roadrunner. I still have the stuffed Wile E. Coyote spoken about in the story. He sits up on one of my bookcases look- ing down at me as I write this. http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm27.html When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, I thought What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq? Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some wiling fool to bet with cause the odds were astronomically in my favor. How could you expect anything less. Or, more sadly, more? Two of my best friends have a saying about a third friend we have in common. He's a sweet guy at heart, but has some...uh... ego issues. ( He produced the film What the bleep... ) Their saying is, We love Bill, but he never fails to disappoint. While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to suggest that she's right with some, though by no means all, of her objections. Being in a fiesta mood, I will agree with you. And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five for seeing. I think the root cause is that she is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- ecially her own. Even so, of course, there was absolutely no need for her final paragraph in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal attack by means of a generalization about your supposed inability to understand research. Get used to it. I have. It's not going to change. Because that would mean that Judy has changed. And I think we all know by now that *that* is never going to be allowed to happen. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. That's just the way things work in this cartoon universe. Actually, there was one exception. If the roadrunner is enlightenment and Wile E. Coyote is the seeker, there WAS one moment in which he transcended the laws of this cartoon universe and realized his dream. He *caught* the roadrunner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk This is a potent metaphor for how close I think scientists are ever going to get to defining samadhi and enlightenment. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've thought often about her comments: Out of touch with intention itself. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: snip And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five for seeing. I think the root cause is that she is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- ecially her own. But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and (b) he's no more able than Angela to explain how I missed his intention. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've thought often about her comments: Out of touch with intention itself. Intent is not really *dealt with* in the TM dogma. It's very possible to miss its value. In some of the other traditions I studied, we were taught specifically to cut through the fog of someone's word and suss out their *intent* in saying them. She never had that training; she probably doesn't even believe that such a sussing is possible. On this forum, a focus on intent would involve reading someone's post and then thinking, What did this person hope to *accomplish* by posting this? If the answer to that question is, To uplift others to a more noble or interesting plane of awareness, then you are dealing with one sort of being. If the answer to that question is, To lower as many others as possible to my plane of awareness, then you're dealing with another sort of being. Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. The people can feel each of their *intents*, and are reacting accordingly. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: snip And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five for seeing. I think the root cause is that she is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- ecially her own. But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and (b) he's no more able than Angela to explain how I missed his intention. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've thought often about her comments: Out of touch with intention itself. Intent is not really *dealt with* in the TM dogma. It's very possible to miss its value. In some of the other traditions I studied, we were taught specifically to cut through the fog of someone's word and suss out their *intent* in saying them. She never had that training; she probably doesn't even believe that such a sussing is possible. Hilarious. I do such sussing all the time, and Barry just *hates* it. On this forum, a focus on intent would involve reading someone's post and then thinking, What did this person hope to *accomplish* by posting this? Barry's intent in the post at issue was to call Lawson's statements about TM research, and the validity of the TM research itself, in question. But Barry misfired big-time because he doesn't know what the research involves. If the answer to that question is, To uplift others to a more noble or interesting plane of awareness, then you are dealing with one sort of being. If the answer to that question is, To lower as many others as possible to my plane of awareness, then you're dealing with another sort of being. Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. The people can feel each of their *intents*, and are reacting accordingly. Actually in many cases they're projecting intents on both candidates.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
That's a great rap, Turq. I was aware of Intention Itself, but had not found its more than obvious name. But I have often told the poets I work with that the impulse to write a poem is necessarily deep. That's if they're really intending to write a poem rather than writing a piece of crap whose real intention it is to say, Look how sensitive I am, or recently, Look how gutsy I am etc. I don't work with writers like that. So thanks again for the term Intention Itself. Worthy improvement on Kant's Das Ding Ansich I'd suggest an editorial change for: To lower as many others as possible to my plane of awareness to read instead To lower as many others as possible to a plane of awareness lower than mine. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've thought often about her comments: Out of touch with intention itself. Intent is not really *dealt with* in the TM dogma. It's very possible to miss its value. In some of the other traditions I studied, we were taught specifically to cut through the fog of someone's word and suss out their *intent* in saying them. She never had that training; she probably doesn't even believe that such a sussing is possible. On this forum, a focus on intent would involve reading someone's post and then thinking, What did this person hope to *accomplish* by posting this? If the answer to that question is, To uplift others to a more noble or interesting plane of awareness, then you are dealing with one sort of being. If the answer to that question is, To lower as many others as possible to my plane of awareness, then you're dealing with another sort of being. Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. The people can feel each of their *intents*, and are reacting accordingly. --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: snip And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five for seeing. I think the root cause is that she is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- ecially her own. But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and (b) he's no more able than Angela to explain how I missed his intention. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Well, actually, dual-awareness originated from non-dual awareness, according to MMY's Vedic Cosmology... I would instead say that dual-awareness originated from undifferentiated awareness, like waking up from sleep, and then dual- awareness ripens into non-dual awareness, like falling in love.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vaj wrote: In the tradition I practice in it is considered essential to resolve Correct View (of the nature of ultimate reality) from the very get go. If you are amiss the teacher can and will help you 'trim your sails' or refine your tack. This is the great pitfall of commercial meditation teachers and their methods. I keep wondering why people here continue to intellectually masturbate over these states of consciousness. Once you are on your way down the road it doesn't matter. In my tradition the guru just looks at your face and from the glow he can tell you are getting somewhere. There is really no distinctions in my tradition between cosmic consciousness, god consciousness or unity. We don't waste time on that. The goal is moksha. Sometimes the descriptions here would leave people somewhat if not totally dysfunctional and that wouldn't be of any practical value. But then blind men describing an elephant :-) You misunderstand our intent, Bhairitu. We sit around and intellectually masturbate here on FFL because we LIKE masturbation. Plus, we're acting out of compassion for the elephant. Hey!, elephants are human, too, and like a little bit of attention. All these blind guys and gals feeling him up gets HIM off, too. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vaj wrote: In the tradition I practice in it is considered essential to resolve Correct View (of the nature of ultimate reality) from the very get go. If you are amiss the teacher can and will help you 'trim your sails' or refine your tack. This is the great pitfall of commercial meditation teachers and their methods. I keep wondering why people here continue to intellectually masturbate over these states of consciousness. Once you are on your way down the road it doesn't matter. In my tradition the guru just looks at your face and from the glow he can tell you are getting somewhere. There is really no distinctions in my tradition between cosmic consciousness, god consciousness or unity. We don't waste time on that. The goal is moksha. Sometimes the descriptions here would leave people somewhat if not totally dysfunctional and that wouldn't be of any practical value. But then blind men describing an elephant :-) You misunderstand our intent, Bhairitu. We sit around and intellectually masturbate here on FFL because we LIKE masturbation. Plus, we're acting out of compassion for the elephant. Hey!, elephants are human, too, and like a little bit of attention. All these blind guys and gals feeling him up gets HIM off, too. :-) And you liked your response so well you posted it twice? :-) Not to change the subject but why is it you can walk the streets of Spain and other places in Europe at night safely? I have a theory (which the neo-libertarians here won't like) but maybe the thugs are too busy feeling the elephant though I thought it was about touching their monkey.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of my favorite quotes from last week is this from Sandy Ego: Now I will explain myself, and please see if you can discriminate between what I am saying, and what you think I am saying. If he creates his world with his thoughts and perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what everyone else should also be doing or they're deluded, no should about it. Making distinctions is far different from mandating behavior, to me anyway. then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone saying? I can only know what I think they're saying. snip sounds like you didn't read the rest of what Sandy Ego said. (btw, you understand Spanish, eh? ;-))
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of my favorite quotes from last week is this from Sandy Ego: Now I will explain myself, and please see if you can discriminate between what I am saying, and what you think I am saying. If he creates his world with his thoughts and perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what everyone else should also be doing or they're deluded, then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone saying? I can only know what I think they're saying. I'm pasting an interesting article below about a scientist who recorded her experience of having a stroke and then spoke about it on TED talks because it may shed an interesting light on higher states. I've had experiences of what's been described as Unity, I can switch into that experience at will, but, for the life of me, I can't see that it is a higher state than any other state I've experienced. They're just states, useful for some things, not so useful for others. And no matter how much my experience is that I am the author of my universe, my body still ages. I'm a very, very long way from the time I had a job in a key club, wearing stilettos and net stockings while delivering heavy trays of food and drinks from a dirty kitchen to dirty old men. Well, I don't know that there is really such a thing as Unity consciousness using the TM definition, but it is obvious that you are not and never have been in that state, by the TM definition. I'm not convinced that such a state exists in anyone currently, or, if it does, that MMY ever was in it, but, using the TM definition, which you have implicitly acknowledged, you are not and never have been, in said state. THAT said, I can see why you don't find the non-existence of the state in yourself to be of any value... Just an observation. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of my favorite quotes from last week is this from Sandy Ego: Now I will explain myself, and please see if you can discriminate between what I am saying, and what you think I am saying. If he creates his world with his thoughts and perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what everyone else should also be doing or they're deluded, then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone saying? I can only know what I think they're saying. I'm pasting an interesting article below about a scientist who recorded her experience of having a stroke and then spoke about it on TED talks because it may shed an interesting light on higher states. I've had experiences of what's been described as Unity, I can switch into that experience at will, but, for the life of me, I can't see that it is a higher state than any other state I've experienced. They're just states, useful for some things, not so useful for others. And no matter how much my experience is that I am the author of my universe, my body still ages. I'm a very, very long way from the time I had a job in a key club, wearing stilettos and net stockings while delivering heavy trays of food and drinks from a dirty kitchen to dirty old men. Well, I don't know that there is really such a thing as Unity consciousness using the TM definition, but it is obvious that you are not and never have been in that state, by the TM definition. I'm not convinced that such a state exists in anyone currently, or, if it does, that MMY ever was in it, but, using the TM definition, which you have implicitly acknowledged, you are not and never have been, in said state. THAT said, I can see why you don't find the non-existence of the state in yourself to be of any value... Just an observation. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of my favorite quotes from last week is this from Sandy Ego: Now I will explain myself, and please see if you can discriminate between what I am saying, and what you think I am saying. If he creates his world with his thoughts and perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what everyone else should also be doing or they're deluded, then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone saying? I can only know what I think they're saying. I'm pasting an interesting article below about a scientist who recorded her experience of having a stroke and then spoke about it on TED talks because it may shed an interesting light on higher states. I've had experiences of what's been described as Unity, I can switch into that experience at will, but, for the life of me, I can't see that it is a higher state than any other state I've experienced. They're just states, useful for some things, not so useful for others. And no matter how much my experience is that I am the author of my universe, my body still ages. I'm a very, very long way from the time I had a job in a key club, wearing stilettos and net stockings while delivering heavy trays of food and drinks from a dirty kitchen to dirty old men. Well, I don't know that there is really such a thing as Unity consciousness using the TM definition, but it is obvious that you are not and never have been in that state, by the TM definition. I'm not convinced that such a state exists in anyone currently, or, if it does, that MMY ever was in it, but, using the TM definition, which you have implicitly acknowledged, you are not and never have been, in said state. THAT said, I can see why you don't find the non-existence of the state in yourself to be of any value... Just an observation. Lawson Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. I agree. I don't like the term higher states of consciousness. As plainly descriptive as it is of energy flow, it is almost always misinterpreted as a value judgment. A more descriptive term would be progressive states of consciousness, because established non-dual awareness certainly progresses from dual awareness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: One of my favorite quotes from last week is this from Sandy Ego: Now I will explain myself, and please see if you can discriminate between what I am saying, and what you think I am saying. If he creates his world with his thoughts and perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what everyone else should also be doing or they're deluded, then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone saying? I can only know what I think they're saying. I'm pasting an interesting article below about a scientist who recorded her experience of having a stroke and then spoke about it on TED talks because it may shed an interesting light on higher states. I've had experiences of what's been described as Unity, I can switch into that experience at will, but, for the life of me, I can't see that it is a higher state than any other state I've experienced. They're just states, useful for some things, not so useful for others. And no matter how much my experience is that I am the author of my universe, my body still ages. I'm a very, very long way from the time I had a job in a key club, wearing stilettos and net stockings while delivering heavy trays of food and drinks from a dirty kitchen to dirty old men. Well, I don't know that there is really such a thing as Unity consciousness using the TM definition, but it is obvious that you are not and never have been in that state, by the TM definition. I'm not convinced that such a state exists in anyone currently, or, if it does, that MMY ever was in it, but, using the TM definition, which you have implicitly acknowledged, you are not and never have been, in said state. THAT said, I can see why you don't find the non-existence of the state in yourself to be of any value... Just an observation. Lawson Until proven otherwise, I claim there is a state of Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY (tho as you I can not speak to what the above experience is) My first UC (type) experience was on a rounding course - and had been having CC state for about a week (BTW, on that winter course there were snow drifts inside the hallways of Howard Dorm, and sorta warm water a few hours a week, anyone else there at that time?) and I took some advice from Walter Koch who once said that if one is 'feeling Being' do what you can to shake it and don't try to hold on to it. Anyways, I was at the cafeteria eating heavy foods like tons of peanut butter and yukking it up with the 'rebels' trying to shake Being, and someone I did not know very well walked into the room and I witnessed myself walking into the room - and what almost caused to upload my mouthful of food was that the -- I am That, You are That -- is not a metaphor, it is not some warm fuzzy poetic leap, but is is a crisp undeniable recognition - - and over the next few days the frequency of such recognitions increased
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Yes, exactly. I am that...etc. That is my experience. I like the experience, but it's not convenient when interacting with others to actually experience them in that way. So I don't go there when I'm talking to the guy at Walmart to ask him where the stuff is that I want. On the other hand, I like getting together with a good friend who can also experience that state, though there is never much to say to each other. Still, the companionship is deep and lovely. So, yeah, I can go there and it's great. But I think of it as just another outfit to wear, not better than any other. a --- Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: One of my favorite quotes from last week is this from Sandy Ego: Now I will explain myself, and please see if you can discriminate between what I am saying, and what you think I am saying. If he creates his world with his thoughts and perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what everyone else should also be doing or they're deluded, then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone saying? I can only know what I think they're saying. I'm pasting an interesting article below about a scientist who recorded her experience of having a stroke and then spoke about it on TED talks because it may shed an interesting light on higher states. I've had experiences of what's been described as Unity, I can switch into that experience at will, but, for the life of me, I can't see that it is a higher state than any other state I've experienced. They're just states, useful for some things, not so useful for others. And no matter how much my experience is that I am the author of my universe, my body still ages. I'm a very, very long way from the time I had a job in a key club, wearing stilettos and net stockings while delivering heavy trays of food and drinks from a dirty kitchen to dirty old men. Well, I don't know that there is really such a thing as Unity consciousness using the TM definition, but it is obvious that you are not and never have been in that state, by the TM definition. I'm not convinced that such a state exists in anyone currently, or, if it does, that MMY ever was in it, but, using the TM definition, which you have implicitly acknowledged, you are not and never have been, in said state. THAT said, I can see why you don't find the non-existence of the state in yourself to be of any value... Just an observation. Lawson Until proven otherwise, I claim there is a state of Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY (tho as you I can not speak to what the above experience is) My first UC (type) experience was on a rounding course - and had been having CC state for about a week (BTW, on that winter course there were snow drifts inside the hallways of Howard Dorm, and sorta warm water a few hours a week, anyone else there at that time?) and I took some advice from Walter Koch who once said that if one is 'feeling Being' do what you can to shake it and don't try to hold on to it. Anyways, I was at the cafeteria eating heavy foods like tons of peanut butter and yukking it up with the 'rebels' trying to shake Being, and someone I did not know very well walked into the room and I witnessed myself walking into the room - and what almost caused to upload my mouthful of food was that the -- I am That, You are That -- is not a metaphor, it is not some warm fuzzy poetic leap, but is is a crisp undeniable recognition - - and over the next few days the frequency of such recognitions increased Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. I agree. I don't like the term higher states of consciousness. As plainly descriptive as it is of energy flow, it is almost always misinterpreted as a value judgment. A more descriptive term would be progressive states of consciousness, because established non-dual awareness certainly progresses from dual awareness. Well, actually, dual-awareness originated from non-dual awareness, according to MMY's Vedic Cosmology... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Top-posting again: UC, as defined by MMY, includes the ability to manifest the final stage of any siddhi when decided upon... The question, or course, arises: who is deciding? ...but at the last, claiming that you can go into unity when you decide to is an odd thing to claim unless you also mean to say that you can float when you decide to. Just who is deciding to be or not be in Unity is left as an exercise for the reader. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, exactly. I am that...etc. That is my experience. I like the experience, but it's not convenient when interacting with others to actually experience them in that way. So I don't go there when I'm talking to the guy at Walmart to ask him where the stuff is that I want. On the other hand, I like getting together with a good friend who can also experience that state, though there is never much to say to each other. Still, the companionship is deep and lovely. So, yeah, I can go there and it's great. But I think of it as just another outfit to wear, not better than any other. a --- Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: One of my favorite quotes from last week is this from Sandy Ego: Now I will explain myself, and please see if you can discriminate between what I am saying, and what you think I am saying. If he creates his world with his thoughts and perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what everyone else should also be doing or they're deluded, then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone saying? I can only know what I think they're saying. I'm pasting an interesting article below about a scientist who recorded her experience of having a stroke and then spoke about it on TED talks because it may shed an interesting light on higher states. I've had experiences of what's been described as Unity, I can switch into that experience at will, but, for the life of me, I can't see that it is a higher state than any other state I've experienced. They're just states, useful for some things, not so useful for others. And no matter how much my experience is that I am the author of my universe, my body still ages. I'm a very, very long way from the time I had a job in a key club, wearing stilettos and net stockings while delivering heavy trays of food and drinks from a dirty kitchen to dirty old men. Well, I don't know that there is really such a thing as Unity consciousness using the TM definition, but it is obvious that you are not and never have been in that state, by the TM definition. I'm not convinced that such a state exists in anyone currently, or, if it does, that MMY ever was in it, but, using the TM definition, which you have implicitly acknowledged, you are not and never have been, in said state. THAT said, I can see why you don't find the non-existence of the state in yourself to be of any value... Just an observation. Lawson Until proven otherwise, I claim there is a state of Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY (tho as you I can not speak to what the above experience is) My first UC (type) experience was on a rounding course - and had been having CC state for about a week (BTW, on that winter course there were snow drifts inside the hallways of Howard Dorm, and sorta warm water a few hours a week, anyone else there at that time?) and I took some advice from Walter Koch who once said that if one is 'feeling Being' do what you can to shake it and don't try to hold on to it. Anyways, I was at the cafeteria eating heavy foods like tons of peanut butter and yukking it up with the 'rebels' trying to shake Being, and someone I did not know very well walked into the room and I witnessed myself walking into the room - and what almost caused to upload my mouthful of food was that the -- I am That, You are That -- is not a metaphor, it is not some warm fuzzy poetic leap, but is is a crisp undeniable recognition - - and over the next few days the frequency of such recognitions increased Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. It's interesting that you say The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. At a certain point, I became disillusioned with states of consciousness because a state comes and goes. For the longest time, I lived for states of consciousness that I not only enjoyed but that I thought (thanks to MMY) were higher and therefore an indication that I was making progress or maybe was even a better person because of them. There's the idea in MMY's description, as least how I understand it, that a state can become permanent -- such as permanent unity consciousness. But that just doesn't make any sense to me. All of his descriptions seem to be about an experiencer experiencing things in a certain way. What about the disappearance of a separate experiencer? Although you can define unity consciousness as the disappearance of the separate experiencer, MMY's description always seemed worded in such a way as to indicate that there was someone (some one) there having the experience. An experience always comes and goes. I would thing the deeper reality than any of them is independent of the sense of a separate me having the experience. I know what I'm saying will be subject to all sorts of interpretations. I think the event in consciousness that I'm interested in can't be described neatly. One thing with MMY's knowledge is that it has neat, clear descriptions. I've had experiences which fit all these descriptions, but again they were only experiences. An experience can be described. Those I consider wise are clear that Reality can only be alluded to. When I was a TBer, I felt I was in the know because I could repeat descriptions. I'd mastered certain words and concepts. Interestingly now, none of those seems to have any value for me anymore. I also thought that I was in the know because I'd experienced the states MMY described, at least I had experiences that seemed to fit his descriptions. (This gets muddy because we have know way of knowing if someone else's experience, or even our own, is correlated with MMY's descriptions.) In any case, while I will sometimes find myself curious about an experience, for the most part I've lost interest in experiences and states of consciousness. Maybe it's a question of what I value. Maybe it's the loss of an addiction to experience. It's just interesting to find myself in such a different place than I was when I was so caught up in what MMY had to say and in the TMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. Well, unity isn't an experience, according to my understanding. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
I know what you're getting at - and add the element that it almost seems like BeinginCoitus, there is a tad of guilt associated - or a little yuck, I am That and you are Gross :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, exactly. I am that...etc. That is my experience. I like the experience, but it's not convenient when interacting with others to actually experience them in that way. So I don't go there when I'm talking to the guy at Walmart to ask him where the stuff is that I want. On the other hand, I like getting together with a good friend who can also experience that state, though there is never much to say to each other. Still, the companionship is deep and lovely. So, yeah, I can go there and it's great. But I think of it as just another outfit to wear, not better than any other. a --- Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: One of my favorite quotes from last week is this from Sandy Ego: Now I will explain myself, and please see if you can discriminate between what I am saying, and what you think I am saying. If he creates his world with his thoughts and perceptions, and, moreover thinks this is what everyone else should also be doing or they're deluded, then, how, in heaven's name can I know what anyone saying? I can only know what I think they're saying. I'm pasting an interesting article below about a scientist who recorded her experience of having a stroke and then spoke about it on TED talks because it may shed an interesting light on higher states. I've had experiences of what's been described as Unity, I can switch into that experience at will, but, for the life of me, I can't see that it is a higher state than any other state I've experienced. They're just states, useful for some things, not so useful for others. And no matter how much my experience is that I am the author of my universe, my body still ages. I'm a very, very long way from the time I had a job in a key club, wearing stilettos and net stockings while delivering heavy trays of food and drinks from a dirty kitchen to dirty old men. Well, I don't know that there is really such a thing as Unity consciousness using the TM definition, but it is obvious that you are not and never have been in that state, by the TM definition. I'm not convinced that such a state exists in anyone currently, or, if it does, that MMY ever was in it, but, using the TM definition, which you have implicitly acknowledged, you are not and never have been, in said state. THAT said, I can see why you don't find the non-existence of the state in yourself to be of any value... Just an observation. Lawson Until proven otherwise, I claim there is a state of Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY (tho as you I can not speak to what the above experience is) My first UC (type) experience was on a rounding course - and had been having CC state for about a week (BTW, on that winter course there were snow drifts inside the hallways of Howard Dorm, and sorta warm water a few hours a week, anyone else there at that time?) and I took some advice from Walter Koch who once said that if one is 'feeling Being' do what you can to shake it and don't try to hold on to it. Anyways, I was at the cafeteria eating heavy foods like tons of peanut butter and yukking it up with the 'rebels' trying to shake Being, and someone I did not know very well walked into the room and I witnessed myself walking into the room - and what almost caused to upload my mouthful of food was that the -- I am That, You are That -- is not a metaphor, it is not some warm fuzzy poetic leap, but is is a crisp undeniable recognition - - and over the next few days the frequency of such recognitions increased Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. It's interesting that you say The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. At a certain point, I became disillusioned with states of consciousness because a state comes and goes. For the longest time, I lived for states of consciousness that I not only enjoyed but that I thought (thanks to MMY) were higher and therefore an indication that I was making progress or maybe was even a better person because of them. There's the idea in MMY's description, as least how I understand it, that a state can become permanent -- such as permanent unity consciousness. But that just doesn't make any sense to me. All of his descriptions seem to be about an experiencer experiencing things in a certain way. What about the disappearance of a separate experiencer? Although you can define unity consciousness as the disappearance of the separate experiencer, MMY's description always seemed worded in such a way as to indicate that there was someone (some one) there having the experience. An experience always comes and goes. I would thing the deeper reality than any of them is independent of the sense of a separate me having the experience. I know what I'm saying will be subject to all sorts of interpretations. I think the event in consciousness that I'm interested in can't be described neatly. One thing with MMY's knowledge is that it has neat, clear descriptions. I've had experiences which fit all these descriptions, but again they were only experiences. An experience can be described. Those I consider wise are clear that Reality can only be alluded to. When I was a TBer, I felt I was in the know because I could repeat descriptions. I'd mastered certain words and concepts. Interestingly now, none of those seems to have any value for me anymore. I also thought that I was in the know because I'd experienced the states MMY described, at least I had experiences that seemed to fit his descriptions. (This gets muddy because we have know way of knowing if someone else's experience, or even our own, is correlated with MMY's descriptions.) In any case, while I will sometimes find myself curious about an experience, for the most part I've lost interest in experiences and states of consciousness. Maybe it's a question of what I value. Maybe it's the loss of an addiction to experience. It's just interesting to find myself in such a different place than I was when I was so caught up in what MMY had to say and in the TMO. Dunno if MMY ever was in Unity or not, but the very act of explaining inherits a narrator, narrative and audience so complaining about his explanations implying such things is kinda tautological. Forget kinda : it IS a tautology. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
a person in unity according to your understanding no longer experiences life? My understanding is that one does still experience life, but knowledge is certainly different in that state. I don't experience the world as separate from me. Another way of saying the same thing is that I don't experience me as located in only the body I inhabit in this life. --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. Well, unity isn't an experience, according to my understanding. Lawson Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. I agree. I don't like the term higher states of consciousness. As plainly descriptive as it is of energy flow, it is almost always misinterpreted as a value judgment. It isn't being misinterpreted as a value judgment, it is being correctly interpreted that way. Your clue in the future will be the use of the ending er. It is a being judged as higher when compared to lower states. In this case your personal value judgment on your own state of consciousness when compared to other people's. (bonus point: what comparative value judgment does the ending est give?) A more descriptive term would be progressive states of consciousness, because established non-dual awareness certainly progresses from dual awareness. Too tough to market, can we just go with toppermost of the poppermost? That worked for the Beatles.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a person in unity according to your understanding no longer experiences life? My understanding is that one does still experience life, but knowledge is certainly different in that state. I don't experience the world as separate from me. Another way of saying the same thing is that I don't experience me as located in only the body I inhabit in this life. Mi mi mi mi... Ahem. La la la la. same old song. Lawson --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. Well, unity isn't an experience, according to my understanding. Lawson Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Well, there's another example of how worthless it is to try to have a conversation about experiences of other states of consciousness. --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a person in unity according to your understanding no longer experiences life? My understanding is that one does still experience life, but knowledge is certainly different in that state. I don't experience the world as separate from me. Another way of saying the same thing is that I don't experience me as located in only the body I inhabit in this life. Mi mi mi mi... Ahem. La la la la. same old song. Lawson --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. Well, unity isn't an experience, according to my understanding. Lawson Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
On Mar 1, 2008, at 5:01 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a person in unity according to your understanding no longer experiences life? My understanding is that one does still experience life, but knowledge is certainly different in that state. I don't experience the world as separate from me. Another way of saying the same thing is that I don't experience me as located in only the body I inhabit in this life. Mi mi mi mi... Ahem. La la la la. same old song. This why it is important--some might say 'vital'--for a student to resolve such issues directly with their teacher. Have some questions as to whether or not you've attained the View of Unity? Ask a good teacher. S/he'll tell you, if they're authentic teachers. In the tradition I practice in it is considered essential to resolve Correct View (of the nature of ultimate reality) from the very get go. If you are amiss the teacher can and will help you 'trim your sails' or refine your tack. This is the great pitfall of commercial meditation teachers and their methods.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
On Mar 1, 2008, at 5:01 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a person in unity according to your understanding no longer experiences life? My understanding is that one does still experience life, but knowledge is certainly different in that state. I don't experience the world as separate from me. Another way of saying the same thing is that I don't experience me as located in only the body I inhabit in this life. Mi mi mi mi... Ahem. La la la la. same old song. This why it is important--some might say 'vital'--for a student to resolve such issues directly with their teacher. Have some questions as to whether or not you've attained the View of Unity? Ask a good teacher. S/he'll tell you, if they're authentic teachers. In the tradition I practice in it is considered essential to resolve Correct View (of the nature of ultimate reality) from the very get go. If you are amiss the teacher can and will help you 'trim your sails' or refine your tack. This is the great pitfall of commercial meditation teachers and their methods.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
On Mar 1, 2008, at 2:31 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. Well, unity isn't an experience, according to my understanding. It is an experience, just not a conventional experience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Vaj wrote: On Mar 1, 2008, at 5:01 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a person in unity according to your understanding no longer experiences life? My understanding is that one does still experience life, but knowledge is certainly different in that state. I don't experience the world as separate from me. Another way of saying the same thing is that I don't experience me as located in only the body I inhabit in this life. Mi mi mi mi... Ahem. La la la la. same old song. This why it is important--some might say 'vital'--for a student to resolve such issues directly with their teacher. Have some questions as to whether or not you've attained the View of Unity? Ask a good teacher. S/he'll tell you, if they're authentic teachers. In the tradition I practice in it is considered essential to resolve Correct View (of the nature of ultimate reality) from the very get go. If you are amiss the teacher can and will help you 'trim your sails' or refine your tack. This is the great pitfall of commercial meditation teachers and their methods. I keep wondering why people here continue to intellectually masturbate over these states of consciousness. Once you are on your way down the road it doesn't matter. In my tradition the guru just looks at your face and from the glow he can tell you are getting somewhere. There is really no distinctions in my tradition between cosmic consciousness, god consciousness or unity. We don't waste time on that. The goal is moksha. Sometimes the descriptions here would leave people somewhat if not totally dysfunctional and that wouldn't be of any practical value. But then blind men describing an elephant :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
What makes you think I have not consulted teachers or that the teachers I have consulted were bogus? On the other hand: I have not lost the ability to live the state some of us are pleased to call the state of ignorance. I don't personally like that term for it. There is nothing ignorant about Ruth and Curtis--on the contrary, but they are both empiricists in the classical sense of the term, which is a good definition of what the Marshies of the world call ignorance. I find that both Ruth and Curtis are very clear thinkers and very honest. Moreover, Curtis has a killer sense of humor that I appreciate a lot, while Ruth has real humility. I like the way they think. Now, you might argue that if I have not lost the ability to be ignorant then Unity is not firmly established. In my view, however, it IS established in the sense that it is accessible all the time--it's just not convenient all the time. On the other hand: Who exactly will tell me that the teachers I've consulted were bogus or the real deal. You? On yet another of my many hands: Am I to give up what is most sacred in me, my imagination, and believe what a teacher tells me without question because that teacher has your good housekeeping stamp of approval? To give up my imagination would be to make the teacher's teaching into a mere religion, a dogma. --- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 1, 2008, at 5:01 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a person in unity according to your understanding no longer experiences life? My understanding is that one does still experience life, but knowledge is certainly different in that state. I don't experience the world as separate from me. Another way of saying the same thing is that I don't experience me as located in only the body I inhabit in this life. Mi mi mi mi... Ahem. La la la la. same old song. This why it is important--some might say 'vital'--for a student to resolve such issues directly with their teacher. Have some questions as to whether or not you've attained the View of Unity? Ask a good teacher. S/he'll tell you, if they're authentic teachers. In the tradition I practice in it is considered essential to resolve Correct View (of the nature of ultimate reality) from the very get go. If you are amiss the teacher can and will help you 'trim your sails' or refine your tack. This is the great pitfall of commercial meditation teachers and their methods. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I keep wondering why people here continue to intellectually masturbate over these states of consciousness. Once you are on your way down the road it doesn't matter. In my tradition the guru just looks at your face and from the glow he can tell you are getting somewhere. There is really no distinctions in my tradition between cosmic consciousness, god consciousness or unity. We don't waste time on that. The goal is moksha. Sometimes the descriptions here would leave people somewhat if not totally dysfunctional and that wouldn't be of any practical value. But then blind men describing an elephant :-) As far as I can figure from this yoga practice its all about growth. As long as there is movement towards greater complexity, greater plurality and unification we are on the right track. Any attempt to break it down into steps is subjective. Sometimes interesting, usually a distraction. s.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Stu wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I keep wondering why people here continue to intellectually masturbate over these states of consciousness. Once you are on your way down the road it doesn't matter. In my tradition the guru just looks at your face and from the glow he can tell you are getting somewhere. There is really no distinctions in my tradition between cosmic consciousness, god consciousness or unity. We don't waste time on that. The goal is moksha. Sometimes the descriptions here would leave people somewhat if not totally dysfunctional and that wouldn't be of any practical value. But then blind men describing an elephant :-) As far as I can figure from this yoga practice its all about growth. As long as there is movement towards greater complexity, greater plurality and unification we are on the right track. Any attempt to break it down into steps is subjective. Sometimes interesting, usually a distraction. s. Exactly. And there are a lot of distracted people on this group. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see why the state is higher. If I experience two radically different states of consciousness at will, then why would I call one higher than the other? They are different. They each have their points. The fact that there are different states and that I can experience them tells me that there must be a deeper reality than any of them. I agree. I don't like the term higher states of consciousness. As plainly descriptive as it is of energy flow, it is almost always misinterpreted as a value judgment. It isn't being misinterpreted as a value judgment, it is being correctly interpreted that way. I disagree. that is an incorrect interpretation. But you do seem fixated by all of the injustice and unfairness inherent in spiritual pursuits, according to your perspective. go for it. Your clue in the future will be the use of the ending er. It is a being judged as higher when compared to lower states. In this case your personal value judgment on your own state of consciousness when compared to other people's. not in my mind Curtis. I use the phrase sparingly for common context, but as you point out, it is nearly always misintepreted. (bonus point: what comparative value judgment does the ending est give?) A more descriptive term would be progressive states of consciousness, because established non-dual awareness certainly progresses from dual awareness. Too tough to market, can we just go with toppermost of the poppermost? That worked for the Beatles. which is *higher* in the air, fog or clouds? Therefore are clouds *better* than fog, or just higher? same point I was making.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 1, 2008, at 5:01 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: a person in unity according to your understanding no longer experiences life? My understanding is that one does still experience life, but knowledge is certainly different in that state. I don't experience the world as separate from me. Another way of saying the same thing is that I don't experience me as located in only the body I inhabit in this life. Mi mi mi mi... Ahem. La la la la. same old song. This why it is important--some might say 'vital'--for a student to resolve such issues directly with their teacher. Have some questions as to whether or not you've attained the View of Unity? Ask a good teacher. S/he'll tell you, if they're authentic teachers. In the tradition I practice in it is considered essential to resolve Correct View (of the nature of ultimate reality) from the very get go. If you are amiss the teacher can and will help you 'trim your sails' or refine your tack. This is the great pitfall of commercial meditation teachers and their methods. I agree that a seeker's View (to use your terminology) must be correct, though the pitfall of your practice is that you make a judgment depending on verification of View through gross material means; a teacher here on earth. In other words, you overlook the other worlds and teachers, unmanifest on the gross plane of existence, available to long term practitioners of TM. You then use this absence of teachers on this plane to denigrate and condemn the practice of TM, asserting that because you have teachers in the flesh, your method is somehow superior. I always found my own way with TM, and when the time came I developed a strong devotional relationship with Guru Dev, who I attuned myself to through total surrender, and used this attunement to carefully evaluate my thinking, my actions and my progress. It was definitely a two way, very personal relationship with my teacher; a very effective practice. So just because the practice of TM is mass marketed and commercially available, the span of awareness that a practitioner becomes familiar with makes it possible to have a teacher appear when necessary.
