[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
Let's take the question: Who are you and what do you really do? The domain in which the question is asked, is the same domain in which it is answered. That domain does not go away, it is not diminished, that domain does not become dishonest. Only in the context of an ever-expanding self does that domain shrink - in WS, that domain is all we've got, in CC that domain appears as though it's painted on (something?), in BC that domain exists only in the boundaries, it allows one to distinguish this from that, to point out Tom, Dick and Harry. Again, let's take the question: Who are you and what do you really do? Intellectually we know that the answer lies tenuously in our memory, what we've experienced, what we've been told and how we've been programmed to think, and, etc. I was born here, grew up here, went to this school, met this person, had some kids, moved here . . . and so on In WS our identity is bound this narrative and instinctively we know how shaky this narrative is and so we spend a disproportionate amount of time propping it up, we embellish it, feed it and rehash it, rehash it, rehash it over and over because if we lose it, it's back to square one. In CC, if we lose our memory, we also lose that narrative - but we don't lose our identity, our Self - - - and so, if the prospect of losing that narrative leaves a wicked transcendental smile on your face - that's CC
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
Sandi Ego wrote (snipped): witnessing is nothing more than the first glimpses of ceding the individual ego to the cosmic ego. after awhile the cosmic ego predominates and the individual ego disappears. just as you said, it is all a matter of integration. The companion of silence which initially seems foreign is later found to be true identity. Me (truncated): That is my experience exactly, Sandy. And it also seems to me to be the case that language becomes somewhat of an a priori lie at that point. When I am truly my Self, language that was habitual when I was self is not adequate at all. On the other hand, if I write as Self dictates, the results are often strange. And when I first began witnessing deep sleep, I hated it big time because I was witness to a tired and badly managed physiology in all it's debilitated glory that I still identified with to a degree to great for comfort. However, the individual ego doesn't exactly disappear. It's there as a tool or a mouthpiece when needed. a Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Witnessing is not a dissassociative state in which different aspects of the personality are fragmented from one another. It's a natural experience that arises when the silent aspect of life is open to awareness along with the active aspects. While I'd like to make that same assumption, I find that if I'm honest with myself, I cannot. It may feel that way at the time, but the bottom line is that witnessing is Just Another Subjective Experience. We have all been carefully taught how to interpret those subjective experience, in the TMO and/or in other spiritual traditions. But there is no surety that their interpretation is the correct one IMO. There's a distinct patter of EEG for witnessing ala TM. Its associated with non-sensory- related brain activity --an idling state, as it were. By non-sensory I mean activity that isn't driven/influenced by input from the thalamus. Its just ongoing optimization activity, or so I suspect since any time neurons are alive, they're attempting to optimize their connections with their neighbors--thats why isolated neurons in petri dishes look like amoebae: they're desperately seeking input to optimize. At the most fundamental level, thats all neurons EVER do (besides eat and excrete) but the independent optimization process gets overwhelmed at times by reactions to inputs from sensory centers. Lawson How distinct is this really? Arguably, spending too much time in alpha leads to the brain desperately seeking imput. So, get up, get going, and do something. Ruth. Look at that EEG pattern of Alpha activity on my website. Notice the lines that have been drawn vertically across all leads. Find any other EEG trace anywhere in the world where you can do that, please. Is that distinct enough for you? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
snip Answer to Rick's post: Me: I think your example illustrates that the usefulness of these states is context dependent. In a situation like you mentioned, a detached silence is a real asset. But I believe that this state is not useful for making love. Rick: Our difference is that you regard these states as relative perspectives, whereas I regard them as openings to universal realities. That makes sense, since you doubt the existence of subtler realities. Me: I had to give this some thought. Although I am not sure about the terms universal, or subtler realties, I do recognize the limits of our senses and cognitive abilities to appreciate the full range of possible reality. We are guaranteed to be only catching a slice of life. Both objective reality and the capabilities of our minds are filled with mystery and untapped potential. What I am skeptical about is that ancient cultures have already figured all this out given their religious biases. I believe we need to add the insights from the ancient texts into the pot of modern thought and not take any of them as automatically authoritative. It is a given for me that ancient cultures were as full of nonsense as wisdom and that we might be in a better position to sort the two out today. Rick: You also imply in your last sentence above that higher states make one emotionally numb. I think there is evidence for that in the TMO, but there is also evidence throughout the larger spiritual community that greater emotional richness accompanies development of consciousness. I don't know much about tantra, but I gather that tantrics regard the ability to maintain inner silence as a great aid to love making. Me: I believe that any sex involves altered states and great sex is full of trance enhancement. But I believe that too much buzz of any kind becomes an end in itself rather than an enhancement to the communication of sex and full engagement with it emotionally and physically. I am completely against (for me) any tradition that is anti male orgasm. (approaching the ick zone, moving on...) snip Me:Where I differ with traditional yogic theory is that they seem to feel that you can't have too much silence along with activity. I think you can depending on what you are doing. Rick: I agree with you, but I think that too much would only be a temporary state, due to inadequate integration. Also, the people I know who seem to be speaking from experience say that the whole witnessing/silence thing is a stage, and that silence is eventually perceived to be full of dynamism. I'm a little out of my league discussing this, Me: I believe that your experiences are on a par with any of the people claiming full awakening. The difference I suspect is that some people have a more imaginative and flamboyant and frankly less rigorously honest self perception. They feel comfortable describing themselves in ways that you do not. But by now, I seriously doubt they are experiencing anything you are not also. With the exception of those people whose mental make up is inherently unstable and prone to wild states of departures from reality. We both know some people who are just out there, for real for real. Since so far I have not seen anyone do anything that indicates they have magical abilities it all comes down to self reported reality and self perception. And even on courses I never felt like the people with the best experiences were the most stable people. Rick: but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be some undesirable aspects to certain stages in the development of consciousness, but these stages are transitional, and as one moves on, the undesirable aspects drop off and one is grateful to have persisted in the journey. Me: Here we would have to have a lot of faith in cultures that produced this system of belief. I don't see anything in the records of how their societies ran that make me believe they were that special. In fact they seem somewhat barbaric in specific ways that our present culture has attempted to balance. I am a fan of enhanced states of consciousness. I have a healthy respect for meditation techniques to accomplish them. I just think we need to take a collective deep breath about all the assumptions that have come along with the religious value laden spiritual traditions. We have learned some stuff about how our mind's work since ancient times and I would like to see the knowledge fields less insulated from each other. Until we know more about the possible states of mind that we can experience, it seem premature to have the kind of confidence I see in many spiritual traditions about the content generated by those experiences. I believe that we are both approaching a level of honesty and integrity about what we can be confident with concerning our world view as best we can. That's why I'm here brother. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version:
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:17 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington snip Answer to Rick's post: Me: I think your example illustrates that the usefulness of these states is context dependent. In a situation like you mentioned, a detached silence is a real asset. But I believe that this state is not useful for making love. Rick: Our difference is that you regard these states as relative perspectives, whereas I regard them as openings to universal realities. That makes sense, since you doubt the existence of subtler realities. Me: I had to give this some thought. Although I am not sure about the terms universal, or subtler realties, I do recognize the limits of our senses and cognitive abilities to appreciate the full range of possible reality. We are guaranteed to be only catching a slice of life. Both objective reality and the capabilities of our minds are filled with mystery and untapped potential. What I am skeptical about is that ancient cultures have already figured all this out given their religious biases. I believe we need to add the insights from the ancient texts into the pot of modern thought and not take any of them as automatically authoritative. It is a given for me that ancient cultures were as full of nonsense as wisdom and that we might be in a better position to sort the two out today. I agree with most everything you wrote. And the above paragraph encapsulates it. Andrew Cohen talks a lot about breaking fresh ground – respecting the ancient cultures but not regarding them as utopias to which we must return… taking the best they have to offer and blending it with modern understandings. Sorry I can’t come up with an adequate response just now. I’m getting sleepy and have been up since before 5 this morning. Gotta turn it. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1300 - Release Date: 2/26/2008 7:50 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Witnessing is not a dissassociative state in which different aspects of the personality are fragmented from one another. It's a natural experience that arises when the silent aspect of life is open to awareness along with the active aspects. While I'd like to make that same assumption, I find that if I'm honest with myself, I cannot. It may feel that way at the time, but the bottom line is that witnessing is Just Another Subjective Experience. We have all been carefully taught how to interpret those subjective experience, in the TMO and/or in other spiritual traditions. But there is no surety that their interpretation is the correct one IMO. Thus I will continue to value the witnessing experiences I have had and favor the non-dissociative interpretation of them, but I don't completely rule out the alternative. It doesn't diminish ones functionality, but enhances it. Tell that to the people in Fiuggi who had to be placed under a special watch when they started witnessing 24/7. They tended to embarrass themselves and the TMO in public, and we all know that isn't allowed. Again, while I will admit that what you say above seems to be true for the vast majority of people who exper- ience witnessing as a result of meditative practices, I have encountered enough exceptions to know that it isn't a hard-and-fast rule. I'm just finding myself more like Curtis these days, open to *many* different interpretations of experiences that I once saw only one interpretation of -- the one I had been taught to consider the only interpretation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
It was as though I were in deep meditation throughout the whole dynamic, noisy experience. Not withdrawn or passive in the least just imperturbable. I'm glad you weighed in Rick. I think your example illustrates that the usefulness of these states is context dependent. In a situation like you mentioned, a detached silence is a real asset. But I believe that this state is not useful for making love. Neuro-linquistic programming (NLP) looks at these different states in relationship to the usefulness in a specific context. Their goal is to be able to shift fluidly between the options. I think they are related to the states produced by meditation. Where I differ with traditional yogic theory is that they seem to feel that you can't have too much silence along with activity. I think you can depending on what you are doing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:38 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Steve Martin of Wilmington On Feb 24, 2008, at 6:30 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: This is where I disagree with Maharishi's traditional interpretation of the value of this experience. I think he takes these useful states too far. For example witnessing sleep in a nap seems very restful and efficient. Witnessing sleep at night doesn't seem as restful. Witnessing in activity is not my preferred state to interact with the world. It isn't even my preferred style of functioning with my own mind and emotions. This is a fundamental difference of opinion I have with Maharishi concerning its value for a person's life. It comes at a cost. You kind of have to buy into his whole perspective on life to think of it as a step of higher consciousness, which is a step I am not taking. Witnessing is not a dissassociative state in which different aspects of the personality are fragmented from one another. It's a natural experience that arises when the silent aspect of life is open to awareness along with the active aspects. It doesn't diminish ones functionality, but enhances it. For instance, recently I had to break up a serious dog fight. I was walking an unneutered chow/husky mix off a leash and he ran ahead and began sniffing around an unneutered, leashed German Shepherd. Soon they were fighting. I had to run 50 yards, then reach in and grab the chow with teeth flashing everywhere, blood flowing, and the Shepherd's owner swearing at the top of his lungs. The same silence that always underlies my activities was even more evident, by contrast, and enabled me to react swiftly and decisively and keep my head while the other dog owner (and my wife) were losing theirs. It was as though I were in deep meditation throughout the whole dynamic, noisy experience. Not withdrawn or passive in the least just imperturbable. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.0/1296 - Release Date: 2/24/2008 12:19 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Witnessing is not a dissassociative state in which different aspects of the personality are fragmented from one another. It's a natural experience that arises when the silent aspect of life is open to awareness along with the active aspects. While I'd like to make that same assumption, I find that if I'm honest with myself, I cannot. It may feel that way at the time, but the bottom line is that witnessing is Just Another Subjective Experience. We have all been carefully taught how to interpret those subjective experience, in the TMO and/or in other spiritual traditions. But there is no surety that their interpretation is the correct one IMO. There's a distinct patter of EEG for witnessing ala TM. Its associated with non-sensory- related brain activity --an idling state, as it were. By non-sensory I mean activity that isn't driven/influenced by input from the thalamus. Its just ongoing optimization activity, or so I suspect since any time neurons are alive, they're attempting to optimize their connections with their neighbors--thats why isolated neurons in petri dishes look like amoebae: they're desperately seeking input to optimize. At the most fundamental level, thats all neurons EVER do (besides eat and excrete) but the independent optimization process gets overwhelmed at times by reactions to inputs from sensory centers. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Witnessing is not a dissassociative state in which different aspects of the personality are fragmented from one another. It's a natural experience that arises when the silent aspect of life is open to awareness along with the active aspects. Hi Rick, Thanks for the reminder of the virtue of witnessing as a non-dissassociative state. However as I have taken part in these newsgroups it is evident that long time meditators do experience dissassociative sleep. I began TM in part because of trouble getting to sleep at night. This problem ended shortly after starting the practice. However some 20 years later I find myself awakening late at night in my sleep, sometimes in dream state other times in blackness. In general this leads to me becoming fully awake and not getting sleep I need. Its a pain in the ass. I consider this dysfunctional sleep. When I consulted a sleep specialist this sort of late night insomnia is not common in the general population. I am not sure I can fully correlate it with TM but I have noticed TMers report this experience often. While I'd like to make that same assumption, I find that if I'm honest with myself, I cannot. It may feel that way at the time, but the bottom line is that witnessing is Just Another Subjective Experience. We have all been carefully taught how to interpret those subjective experience, in the TMO and/or in other spiritual traditions. But there is no surety that their interpretation is the correct one IMO. (snip for space) I'm just finding myself more like Curtis these days, open to *many* different interpretations of experiences that I once saw only one interpretation of -- the one I had been taught to consider the only interpretation. Unfortunately we necessarily are in the realm of many different interpretations. With empirical observations, say for example the earth is round. We can set up experiments, see if they are repeatable, report them to society and weight the evidence. Enough weight and we can promote this crazy observation to an accepted theory. With inner work we are condemned to use the same form of measurement as to what is actual. So, I notice how in a high stress situation time slows down and I can bring my awareness out of the situation to act quickly (I am thinking of traffic situations and crazy work deadlines). To test this experience I may talk to the non-meditators around me and note they are caught up in these experiences and panic. I go to my yoga friends and might find common ground. I might even read Patajali and find he reports a similar sort of experience. This is where the trouble lies. In order to understand exterior experience we rely on language - there is a tendency these days to give math great credibility. Thus, the world is round because the math worked that way, and we could support that with real word experience like not falling off the world in ships. However in the world of the inner search we are only left with myths. We can subscribe cause to unseen supreme consciousness, or silence, or what Kant called noomenology. And we can only test these myths against other's experiences. If a group of people accept a common myth they achieve a cult status. If its a larger group they can be deemed a religion. Alas the alternative is solipsism. Which is lonely and has its drawbacks. I guess what I am saying here, is that we have to reach out. Prolly best to respect other's opinions even though their myths sometimes are clearly sick. (Though we do have an obligation to point out the sickness) Because no matter how independent you think you are on this path, others are going to be needed to compare notes. And necessarily that is going to be the source of myth. And our job is going to be deciphering which myths are better than the others. s. Really skeptical but friendly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Witnessing is not a dissassociative state in which different aspects of the personality are fragmented from one another. It's a natural experience that arises when the silent aspect of life is open to awareness along with the active aspects. While I'd like to make that same assumption, I find that if I'm honest with myself, I cannot. It may feel that way at the time, but the bottom line is that witnessing is Just Another Subjective Experience. We have all been carefully taught how to interpret those subjective experience, in the TMO and/or in other spiritual traditions. But there is no surety that their interpretation is the correct one IMO. There's a distinct patter of EEG for witnessing ala TM. Its associated with non-sensory- related brain activity --an idling state, as it were. By non-sensory I mean activity that isn't driven/influenced by input from the thalamus. Its just ongoing optimization activity, or so I suspect since any time neurons are alive, they're attempting to optimize their connections with their neighbors--thats why isolated neurons in petri dishes look like amoebae: they're desperately seeking input to optimize. At the most fundamental level, thats all neurons EVER do (besides eat and excrete) but the independent optimization process gets overwhelmed at times by reactions to inputs from sensory centers. Lawson How distinct is this really? Arguably, spending too much time in alpha leads to the brain desperately seeking imput. So, get up, get going, and do something.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just finding myself more like Curtis these days, open to *many* different interpretations of experiences that I once saw only one interpretation of -- the one I had been taught to consider the only interpretation. I've also been finding myself open to many possible interpretations of things, and it somehow seems possible to entertain more than one possibility, with each possibility contributing something of value to my understanding.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:40 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington It was as though I were in deep meditation throughout the whole dynamic, noisy experience. Not withdrawn or passive in the least – just imperturbable. I'm glad you weighed in Rick. Sorry I don’t have time to follow the discussion more closely. I think your example illustrates that the usefulness of these states is context dependent. In a situation like you mentioned, a detached silence is a real asset. But I believe that this state is not useful for making love. Our difference is that you regard these states as relative perspectives, whereas I regard them as openings to universal realities. That makes sense, since you doubt the existence of subtler realities. You also imply in your last sentence above that “higher” states make one emotionally numb. I think there is evidence for that in the TMO, but there is also evidence throughout the larger spiritual community that greater emotional richness accompanies development of consciousness. I don’t know much about tantra, but I gather that tantrics regard the ability to maintain inner silence as a great aid to love making. Neuro-linquistic programming (NLP) looks at these different states in relationship to the usefulness in a specific context. Their goal is to be able to shift fluidly between the options. I think they are related to the states produced by meditation. Where I differ with traditional yogic theory is that they seem to feel that you can't have too much silence along with activity. I think you can depending on what you are doing. I agree with you, but I think that “too much” would only be a temporary state, due to inadequate integration. Also, the people I know who seem to be speaking from experience say that the whole witnessing/silence thing is a stage, and that silence is eventually perceived to be full of dynamism. I’m a little out of my league discussing this, but the point I’m trying to make is that there may be some undesirable aspects to certain stages in the development of consciousness, but these stages are transitional, and as one moves on, the undesirable aspects drop off and one is grateful to have persisted in the journey. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1298 - Release Date: 2/25/2008 8:45 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:40 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington It was as though I were in deep meditation throughout the whole dynamic, noisy experience. Not withdrawn or passive in the least just imperturbable. I'm glad you weighed in Rick. Sorry I don't have time to follow the discussion more closely. I think your example illustrates that the usefulness of these states is context dependent. In a situation like you mentioned, a detached silence is a real asset. But I believe that this state is not useful for making love. Our difference is that you regard these states as relative perspectives, whereas I regard them as openings to universal realities. That makes sense, since you doubt the existence of subtler realities. You also imply in your last sentence above that higher states make one emotionally numb. I think there is evidence for that in the TMO, but there is also evidence throughout the larger spiritual community that greater emotional richness accompanies development of consciousness. I don't know much about tantra, but I gather that tantrics regard the ability to maintain inner silence as a great aid to love making. Neuro-linquistic programming (NLP) looks at these different states in relationship to the usefulness in a specific context. Their goal is to be able to shift fluidly between the options. I think they are related to the states produced by meditation. Where I differ with traditional yogic theory is that they seem to feel that you can't have too much silence along with activity. I think you can depending on what you are doing. I agree with you, but I think that too much would only be a temporary state, due to inadequate integration. Also, the people I know who seem to be speaking from experience say that the whole witnessing/silence thing is a stage, and that silence is eventually perceived to be full of dynamism. I'm a little out of my league discussing this, but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be some undesirable aspects to certain stages in the development of consciousness, but these stages are transitional, and as one moves on, the undesirable aspects drop off and one is grateful to have persisted in the journey. exactly right Rick, in my experience. witnessing is nothing more than the first glimpses of ceding the individual ego to the cosmic ego. after awhile the cosmic ego predominates and the individual ego disappears. just as you said, it is all a matter of integration. The companion of silence which initially seems foreign is later found to be true identity. seeing these experiences of growing awareness as discrete and unrelated is similar to taking a car ride from Boston to San Francisco, exiting the vehicle in upstate New York, and declaring the path fragmented.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
Bull's eye again, Mr. Archer, in my humble opinion. --- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:40 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington It was as though I were in deep meditation throughout the whole dynamic, noisy experience. Not withdrawn or passive in the least just imperturbable. I'm glad you weighed in Rick. Sorry I dont have time to follow the discussion more closely. I think your example illustrates that the usefulness of these states is context dependent. In a situation like you mentioned, a detached silence is a real asset. But I believe that this state is not useful for making love. Our difference is that you regard these states as relative perspectives, whereas I regard them as openings to universal realities. That makes sense, since you doubt the existence of subtler realities. You also imply in your last sentence above that higher states make one emotionally numb. I think there is evidence for that in the TMO, but there is also evidence throughout the larger spiritual community that greater emotional richness accompanies development of consciousness. I dont know much about tantra, but I gather that tantrics regard the ability to maintain inner silence as a great aid to love making. Neuro-linquistic programming (NLP) looks at these different states in relationship to the usefulness in a specific context. Their goal is to be able to shift fluidly between the options. I think they are related to the states produced by meditation. Where I differ with traditional yogic theory is that they seem to feel that you can't have too much silence along with activity. I think you can depending on what you are doing. I agree with you, but I think that too much would only be a temporary state, due to inadequate integration. Also, the people I know who seem to be speaking from experience say that the whole witnessing/silence thing is a stage, and that silence is eventually perceived to be full of dynamism. Im a little out of my league discussing this, but the point Im trying to make is that there may be some undesirable aspects to certain stages in the development of consciousness, but these stages are transitional, and as one moves on, the undesirable aspects drop off and one is grateful to have persisted in the journey. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1298 - Release Date: 2/25/2008 8:45 PM Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington
Turq's gonna get pissed again and say that what I claim as being my life is not believable. Well, damn, a Chinese monk did teach me that what Rick says is right. Silence is dynamic and silence isn't an aid in tantric lovemaking, it's indispensable. --- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:40 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing, was: Steve Martin of Wilmington It was as though I were in deep meditation throughout the whole dynamic, noisy experience. Not withdrawn or passive in the least just imperturbable. I'm glad you weighed in Rick. Sorry I dont have time to follow the discussion more closely. I think your example illustrates that the usefulness of these states is context dependent. In a situation like you mentioned, a detached silence is a real asset. But I believe that this state is not useful for making love. Our difference is that you regard these states as relative perspectives, whereas I regard them as openings to universal realities. That makes sense, since you doubt the existence of subtler realities. You also imply in your last sentence above that higher states make one emotionally numb. I think there is evidence for that in the TMO, but there is also evidence throughout the larger spiritual community that greater emotional richness accompanies development of consciousness. I dont know much about tantra, but I gather that tantrics regard the ability to maintain inner silence as a great aid to love making. Neuro-linquistic programming (NLP) looks at these different states in relationship to the usefulness in a specific context. Their goal is to be able to shift fluidly between the options. I think they are related to the states produced by meditation. Where I differ with traditional yogic theory is that they seem to feel that you can't have too much silence along with activity. I think you can depending on what you are doing. I agree with you, but I think that too much would only be a temporary state, due to inadequate integration. Also, the people I know who seem to be speaking from experience say that the whole witnessing/silence thing is a stage, and that silence is eventually perceived to be full of dynamism. Im a little out of my league discussing this, but the point Im trying to make is that there may be some undesirable aspects to certain stages in the development of consciousness, but these stages are transitional, and as one moves on, the undesirable aspects drop off and one is grateful to have persisted in the journey. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1298 - Release Date: 2/25/2008 8:45 PM Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
