Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Remote Viewing-Advanced meditation

Expand Messages
  • Jim Clark
    Hello again Andy, And thank you for your comments. ... Interesting question. I only wish I could give you the guaranteed formula, as do most who have
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 19, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello again Andy,
       
      And thank you for your comments.
       
      You wrote:
      >...  Do you suppose that
      >the 'ordinary jane' walking
      down the street can possess (or be
      >possessed by) such a mystical
      state?  With no effort, no trying, even
      >no 'spiritual background'
      or training?  Do you imagine that the
      >mystical state is some
      uber-state, some transcendental otherworldly
      >realm accessible only to
      bearded, loin-clothed, anorexic
      >individuals?  (Come to think of it,
      Buddha is usually depicted as
      > quite rotund!
      Haaaaa!)
       
      Interesting question. I only wish I could give you the guaranteed formula, as do most who have experienced such states. I can say that my first experiences occurred spontaneously without any formal training, trying or expectation, and that whatever your technique there are no guarantees. While I feel that they can almost always be achieved eventually by anyone through sincere diligent effort, and sometimes even recalled through will, many agree that they are most likely when the intellect has been exhausted so that one gives up trying, and, while there are many varieties, they are usually very brief, extraordinarily pleasant, emotional, and reassuring; sometimes even humorous. Frequently they occur spontaneously as an apparent reaction sparked by just the right combination of words, which themselves seem to reveal an accompanying presence to those simply paying the right kind of attention. Maybe right now at this precise moment. (Peek-a-boo!) Do you feel it?
       
       
      Jim
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andy [mailto:endofthedream@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 4:41 PM
      To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Remote Viewing-Advanced meditation

      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Clark"
      <jclark310@c...> wrote:



      A very satisfying dialogue Jim.  If I may continue a bit ...


      > I agree that the terminology can be misleading. I doubt that
      > anything is not spiritual in a sense, yet I avoid generalizations
      > like "all is spiritual", because such a statement is equivalent to
      > saying that "the word spiritual has no definition".


      *****Yes.  I appreciate your explanation of why we define things and
      I fully agree.  It is a necessary component of communication. 
      Certainly we need definitions such as "hammer" so that when we are
      working on building something, I can say to you "hand me the hammer"
      and there will be consenual agreement (and thus you won't hand me a
      screwdriver! Hahaha!!!).  This is functional defining and it usually
      works great.

      But there are definitions regarding words, the meaning of which are
      very much unclear, and 'spiritual' is one of them.  For one thing,
      while there is pretty much universal agreement that such-and-such an
      object is 'defined' to be "a hammer," there is much disagreement on
      what - exactly - one means by the use of the word 'spiritual.'

      Just using it may induce a disjunction which is not actually present
      ('this' is 'spiritual' and 'that' is 'not').  Going further with
      this, one may inquire: what, other than Thought, separates
      the 'spiritual' from the 'mundane.'  There is a sense that such
      labels/definitions contribute to thinking 'this is holy' and 'this is
      mundane or secular.'  All such labels are seen as quite arbitrary and
      depend upon the labeller's pov, and thus fully subjective.

      Furthermore, one must wonder: is there even such a thing as 'a
      spirit'?  Or is that notion simply part of the mass hypnosis that
      most of humanity undergoes?  If, in fact, there is NO spirit, then
      there is NO spirituality.  What, then, is 'the spirit'?


      > A definition for a word, by definition, differentiates
      > between what is meant by the word and what is not meant. While all
      > material manifestation of the universe has a spiritual cause, it is
      > generally outside our understanding to know what the relationship
      > or meaning is.


      *****This is what I was alluding to, above.  I am in not position to
      assert that "all material manifestation of the universe has a
      spiritual cause."  Images, thoughts, feelings arise here, dreamlike,
      and vanish away similarly.  I agree with your sage observation, "it is
      generally outside our understanding to know what the relationship
      or meaning is."  (It is probably ENTIRELY outside of our
      understanding, as we have no individual understanding anyhow.)


      > At those rare moments when we are blessed to perceive that there is
      > more to worldly events than the apparent "tale told by an idiot
      > signifying nothing" then we label those events "mystical."


      *****Yes.  And, looked at in another perspective, those perceptions
      are really quite UNextraordinary...quite...simple and matter-of-fact,
      once we gets "used to" them.


      > To paraphrase LeShann the ordinary waking view and the mystical view
      > coexist, and while seeming to be totally contradictory, are
      > complementary, and to a degree, both are correct within their
      > limited spheres.


      *****Sure.  Within your night time dreamworld there is perfect
      consistency, even if you are flying or walking through fire. 
      Similarly, the ordinary waking view (where one is more asleep than
      awake, wink, wink) operates out of its own "rules": e.g., you are
      separate from me, there is life and death, he is 'good' and she
      is 'evil,' ... all the dualities, the arising of the ten thousand
      things.  All birthed with a single thought.


      > As more people seem to be observing these days, "there are no
      > accidents". All is connected, but for the most part, we are asleep
      > and unaware of the connection.  Words like mystical are just a
      > convenient tool for helping us differentiate between those events
      > we happen to perceive as falling into the "mystical" class and
      > those we do not (though someone else might).


      *****I want to suggest that the *experience* of separation is also
      mystical.  Our everyday life, the ups-and-downs, the horrors, the
      joys, the successes and defeats, the pleasures and the upsets...the
      entire dreamscape of everyday existence is really quite mystical,
      considering how much a creation it is.

      I understand where the general populace is coming from, in
      using "mystical" in the typical way.  But when separation is seen for
      what it is, the everyday world appears even MORE remarkable and
      mystical...just for its being created.  What a miracle it is!  I
      often find myself gasping at the recognition of it, in 'shock and
      awe.'


      > I like LeShann's way of differentiating "mystical" states from
      > ordinary perception. As he points out, mystics (and mediums, while
      > in a trance) generally agree that language is an inadequate tool to
      > describe the experience, but the words they do use to describe
      > these states consistently emphasize four main ideas:
      >
      > 1) The universe is connected.


      *****I am not sure there even IS a "universe."


      > 2) Ordinary perception of "good" and "evil" is wrong.


      *****As are all the dualities.  They are all correct...up to a
      point.  In the waking daydream they 'make sense,' once one has taken
      on a pov.  But, beyond that, they are just more thought-energy.


      > 3) There are better ways of viewing the universe than through the
      > five senses.


      *****I would say the five senses give us an incomplete view of what's
      happening.


      > 4) Time does not exist.

      *****No question about that one!


      > While these views run counter to our ordinary perception he makes
      > reference to statements made my modern physics support these four
      > main points. These points were also discussed in "The Tao of
      > Physics" and other works.


      *****Yeah.  Quantum physics is seeing this more and more...it just
      took them 5000 years to catch up. Hahaha!!!!


      > Also interesting to me is that "ordinary" perception by us humans,
      > while almost universally contrasts with the mystical view, they
      > also contrast with each other in their view of reality; whereas
      > mystics in a mystical state,


      *****Again with the 'mystical state'!  Do you suppose that
      the 'ordinary jane' walking down the street can possess (or be
      possessed by) such a mystical state?  With no effort, no trying, even
      no 'spiritual background' or training?  Do you imagine that the
      mystical state is some uber-state, some transcendental otherworldly
      realm accessible only to bearded, loin-clothed, anorexic
      individuals?  (Come to think of it, Buddha is usually depicted as
      quite rotund! Haaaaa!)


      > seem to be in remarkable agreement with each other, as evidenced by
      > the apparent homogeneity of this group. We have our disagreements
      > to be sure, but I suspect those here who have experienced
      > a "mystical state" know what I am talking about without my having
      > to rant as I am currently doing (LOL).
      > That's why I love it!


      *****Nicely put!  Yes, I never thought of it in that manner, the
      homogeneity of the seeing, but yes, that appears to be "as it is." 
      Thank you for this pleasure.

      ~andy



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      meditationsocietyofamerica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.