RE: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Remote Viewing-Advanced meditation
- Hello again Andy,And thank you for your comments.You wrote:>... Do you suppose that
>the 'ordinary jane' walkingdown the street can possess (or be
>possessed by) such a mysticalstate? With no effort, no trying, even
>no 'spiritual background'or training? Do you imagine that the
>mystical state is someuber-state, some transcendental otherworldly
>realm accessible only tobearded, 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-------- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jim Clark"
From: Andy [mailto:endofthedream@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 4:41 PM
Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Remote Viewing-Advanced meditation
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
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
> 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
> 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.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.