Transpersonal Psychology: Invitation to Dialogue

[Michael Mooney]

To all readers of this forum:

I've been a a practicing professional transpersonal psychologist for many years. Do any of you moderators or administrators calling it a theological/religious subject have similar credentials? It includes the fields of meditation, transcendental consciousness, mysticism, spirituality, and enlightenment. None of the above are "theology" or "religion"... both of which are based on *doctrines* or the study of doctrines rather than direct experience/realization of "Ultimate Reality."

 

Here is Wiki's introduction with my emphasis in bold:

Transpersonal psychology is a school of psychology that studies the transpersonal, self-transcendent or spiritual aspects of the human experience. A short definition from the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology suggests that transpersonal psychology "is concerned with the study of humanity’s highest potential, and with the recognition, understanding, and realization of unitive, spiritual, and transcendent states of consciousness" (Lajoie and Shapiro, 1992:91). Issues considered in transpersonal psychology include spiritual self-development, peak experiences, mystical experiences, systemic trance and other metaphysical experiences of living.

 

Staff: Please re-consider this move to "theology." It really doesn't belong here.

(I make this request in open forum rather than PM to Freeztar, who I believe initiated the move, because I am promoting better understanding of what the transpersonal field of psychology actually encompasses... transcending materialistic misunderstanding of it.)

 

Michael

[enorbet2]

Boerseun, I agree with most of your post and all of your assessment of mysticism. I do take exception with your statement "There is no such thing as spirit" however, not to mention your honest desire for the disposition of those who reject religion but allow for spirit or soul provided it is not assumed to be immortal. Meningitis is nasty and that's just mean and intolerant IMHO, even if I do understand the kind of frustration engendered by mystical fecal matter and those who think, or pretend, they have some hotline to "Higher Truth". Excuse me while I retch.

 

Regarding spirit, maybe it is a matter of definition, but I think it is safe to refer to that coherent essence of personality that seems to run beyond our control from shortly after birth to death as "spirit", absent severe disorders, but interestingly not excluding considerable trauma such as stroke. Your spirit comes through in your words here, even disembodied from body language and inflection, as I expect mine does as well. AFAIK, there is no good explanation of why there is any empirical value to the organism for the brain to compute such a complex yet consistent sense of self, yet it clearly exists. I even expect that it goes on for awhile in some small way by how that self has affected others, even after it's source has been forgotten, or dissolved into the continuum of the stream of our ancestry. Ultimately I think it becomes so diluted as to have no useful distinction but it seems to me it exists as surely as our bodies do for a time and then is gone forever.

 

So do you actually think I and anyone who thinks this way is hedging bets? deserves meningitis? For my part I am perfectly content with the concept that I will at some point disappear and be no more. For me, that makes every moment all the more precious and that I (and you) are posting here, given that extreme value, tells me we have more to pass on than our DNA, for whatever it is ultimately worth.

[Michael Mooney]

The problem I have with the link above about mysticism being the "science of the sacred" is this- mystics of different traditions have reported very different, often contradictory, experiences. As a result, many contradictory mystical interpretations have sprung up.

 

It seems obvious to me that if mystics are directly experiencing "ultimate reality" they are directly experiencing the SAME ultimate reality. Why then so many conflicting experiences?

You are welcome to your perspective that 'the cup is half empty' but it is also 'half full.'

 

The "Mystic Traditions" link on p.42 addresses your point directly, in the intro as follows:

(my emphasis in bold)

These religions seem to be quite at odds with each other when we look at their outer, or exoteric, forms. Not only do they have different rites, rituals, prayers and precepts, but in many cases their most fundamental doctrines about the nature of Reality appear to contradict each other.

 

If we dig more deeply, however, we find within each of these religious traditions an inner, or esoteric, stream of teachings given by their mystics—those men and women who claim to have had a direct Realization, or Gnosis, of the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Moreover, if we compare the testimonies of these mystics about the Nature of this Reality, we find that, despite vast separations in time, place, language, and culture, they are strikingly similar—so much so that many scholars have come to view their teachings as constituting a single perennial philosophy which, like some irrepressible flower, keeps blooming again and again in the human psyche.

 

One of the primary goals of the Center for Sacred Sciences is to preserve and promote the teachings of these mystics and to show exactly what it is they have in common. Here, for example, are nine points agreed upon by mystics of all the great traditions, together with a sampling of quotes which demonstrate this agreement.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Has anyone here actually *read, studied, comprehended* the Merrell-Wolff link in post 45?

 

If not, there isn't much left to say about the subject of this thread... if no one is serious enough to study a very intelligent essay on one of my favorite authors on "enlightenment."

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Cherry picking quotes from a handful of practitioners of various traditions doesn't settle my point. Amongst hundreds of mystics in any given tradition, its not wonder the authors of the mystic traditions site can find five who agree on any one issue. What of the many that disagree with each of these points?

 

Michael, what do you say to the people who meditate every day for much of their lives(in some sort mystic tradition, perhaps buddhism). But who claim that what they are experiencing is not, in fact, ultimate reality, but instead a novel sensation/feeling due to changes in brain chemistry?

 

You want other to be open to the possibility that through mystic experiences, direct knowledge of reality is possible. My question is- are you open to the possibility that mystic experiences are subjective, and not in fact an objective experience of reality?

 

If I outline some experiments that will convince me that mystic experience are objective experiences of the universe, will you outline some things that will convince you that they are subjective experiences that have more to do with how the brain works than how the universe does?

[Boerseun]

Yes, Michael. I did read it. Like I told you in post #50. Or, maybe you still hold that:

This piece will probably be philosophically over your head

But I doubt it. That piece could be understood by any third grader, and dismissed by the same third grader for the hokum it is.

 

For the sake of other members who have better things to do than to continuously cleanse this site of pseudoscientific gibberish, I will copy a selection of headings and text phrases from the piece - granted, the context would be skewed, but it will give you a flavour of what Michael Mooney busies himself with: (my comments in bold)

 

This heart is, of course, Fundamental Realization. It grounds the philosophy in Reality and ensouls it with a deeper Meaning...

Fundamental Realization, in contrast, involves the turning of the Light of Consciousness back upon Itself toward Its Source...

Consciousness is the knower, Consciousness is the known, and Consciousness is the knowing. In other words, Consciousness is the knowingness...(you gotta be frickin' kidding me!!! :lol:)

The Consciousness at heart of Wolff's philosophy is therefore indescribable...(I fail to see the scientific application of that - they also spend plenty words in describing something that cannot be described. Brilliant.)

This ineffability of Transcendental Consciousness gives rise to an apparent problem...(Umnh... that's putting it mildly, IMHO)

Whatever is known conceptually is known dualistically, and thus falls short of Realization, which is by nature non-dual... (Which makes one wonder, of course, how this rocket scientist KNOWS that, what with it being unknowable and all...:hihi:)

In the Introduction we arrived at an apparent incompatibility between the ineffability of Realization, on the one hand, and the conceptual nature of philosophy, on the other...(It also gives me some insight as to why Transpersonal Psychology battles to be taken seriously by other disciplines...)

The primary universe is created through the process of conception, while the secondary overlay results from an unconsciousness of that creative process, making it appear as if the created objects were real...

We dream up a world, forget that we have dreamt it up, then are bound to live in it as if it were real. Naturally, we then suffer...(It still doesn't explain where I left my car keys. But joking aside - why would a dreamt-up world imply suffering? I kinda like my dreams. This guy prolly had a sad and confused childhood.)

But if it is truly ineffable, we can not describe it with any word, including ineffable...(Michael, it's looking like the perfect post on this subject will be a blank page. By giving it a title you've already said to much. And ohmygod you actually invited us to DISCUSS it!!! We've destroyed it, my man.)

Opening to Nirvanic Thought... (There we go...the man behind the curtain was a... was a... was a Hindu!!!)

Transcendent Source...

Way of Realization...

The illusion is not the primary universe but the secondary universe in which these objects in consciousness are mistaken for apparently real things that exist independent of consciousness...(the only time that ever happens to me is when I've forgotten to take my meds. It's interesting to note that when "transpersonal psychology" took root, they were doing state-sponsored experimenting with LSD. I wonder how many "transpersonal psychologists" were on the receiving end of those experiments...)

In short, Michael, I fully understand your commitment to the subject. If it floats your boat, good for you.

 

But this is New Age hokum of the First Order. And this stuff bothers me no end. There's a lot of Big Words and Grand Ideas, but zero content or any real evidence. And people fall for it hook, line and sinker. I want to get behind the reason for that.

 

Prediction #32445: You are going to reply, saying I'm "not enlightened", I'm "narrow-minded", this (pseudo)philosophy is "over my head", I'm rude, I'm intolerant, I'm not in the proper astral plane, my mind is closed, I'm no good at underwater basket-weaving or what-have-you.

 

But it does not address the fact that there is exactly zero substance in any of this New Age claptrap.

 

[CraigD]

And that brings me to the Ego. The Ego is the mechanism by which an individual experiences his "identity" in the group.

This doesn’t correspond to the usual or any conventional meaning of the psych term “ego” (or, more literally translated from Freud, the “I”) that I know. Wikipedia, for example, defines it as:

Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described.

…

In modern-day society, ego has many meanings. It could mean one’s self-esteem; an inflated sense of self-worth; or in philosophical terms, one’s self.

In the context of this thread, I believe it’s being used mainly in its “the self” meaning.

 

The idea of ones sense of identity or role within a group more closely matches, I think, Jung’s term “persona”, and countless similar terms and concepts by other psychologists.

 

I’m curious, Boerseun – what’s the source of you definition of ego?

The Ego is not an artificial construct, suddenly induced on humans in the last few hundred years. The Ego is part and parcel of who we, as a greedy, sex-obsessed, intelligent, loving, hating, vindictive, forgiving (and egocentric) species are.

I agree.

 

In its usual, psychological sense, the ego is a critical component of a human, and arguably many other “conscious” animals’, psyche – were a human to truly fail to develop or “lose” this component, they would be severely disabled. In classical Freudian terms (which aren’t considered of much rigorous scientific value, but are well-understood by most psych students, so useful for discussion purposes) a person without an ego would be a “big infant”, a complete invalid unable to develop even rudimentary skills such as spatial perception and coordinated movement. In psychodynamic terms, Even a human raised in complete social isolation should have an ego.

Therefore, if you want to be "radically honest" regarding our condition as a species, you should accept the Ego not for being a negative thing, but for being real, and human.

Here (avoiding the “radically honest” subject) I think we see one of those failures of language upon which General Semantics and other movements promoting precision of language place so much focus: “ego” as used by a psychodynamicist such as Freud or Jung refers to a very different thing than when used by a typical Buddhist or similar mystic (whom I believe Michael Mooney is). According to these latter, the ego can, and generally should, be diminished, or even completely extinguished, but in this usage, the reference is not to a critical part of the psyche, and the result is not a mindless invalid, but a person who’s thought - “internal narrative” and judgment making - distinguishes little or not at all between self and others.

For thousands of years, Bhuddists have been meditating to rid themselves of the Ego, repeating a mantra over and over again until it loses all meaning - not so mystical after all: try saying the word "brick" in your head a thousand times, and see if you can attach any meaning to that word afterwards. Or pick any other word of your choice. Same result. It's all BS.

From my limited experience with Bhuddist and similar traditions, I can confidently say there’s much more to it than this characterization implies.

Why meditate? Why try and deny your ego its place in the world, if you want to be "brutally honest" about things?

From a pragmatic, scientific sociological perspective, the answer to “why meditate” in the manner of Bhuddists and similar mystics, is that it causes one to be a more beneficial member of society, primarily by reducing antisocial behaviors related to selfishness. As with the practice of most moral philosophical traditions, the practice often prove more complicated and troubled than the theory.

You're human. Honestly, you do have an ego.

At the risk repetition and excessive parsing of the quoted post, this appears to me another case of failing to recognize that a single word – “ego” – is being used to refer to two very different concepts.

The hippies and a myriad other counter-culture proponents were merely kicking against the system because they didn't want to ante up and go t the effort of studying the system and understand it.

I don't think this is entirely accurate.

 

Perhaps there are regional difference in our meanings of “hippie”, but in the US, UK, and all of Europe with which I’m acquainted, many dues-paying scientists identify themselves as hippies.

 

“Hippie” is ambiguous and difficult to define, but restricting myself to a single quality, I’d characterize it as one who rejects injurious and deadly violence, especially government or other authority sponsored war.

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun,

If there were a place to start actually communicating (there isn't) it would have been a serious and sincere reply to the following... From my post 45 replying to your mystic-bashing tirade in #43:

 

Everything you "believe" about the world has come from your perception of it and your reasoning based on those perceptions.

 

Likewise mystics directly perceive that Ultimate Reality which was the subject of my last link. Your obviously hostile bigotry against the latter is based on your absolute certainty that your perceptions and reasoning reflect The Truth, while mystics' direct perception of the realm transcending materialism.empiricism is delude "bullshit."

 

But, alas!... the opportunity has passed for discussion of "Consciousness Without an Object" (CWO)** (Title of his masterpiece, btw) in a dialogue of mutual respect .

... Then we might have delved into some of the into presentation... and I would explain from firsthand experience what the following means:

 

The Fundamental Realization which is at the heart of Wolff's philosophy transcends conceptual understanding. Conception is a mode of cognition that involves objectification. When we know conceptually, we are creating an object of knowledge. Fundamental Realization, in contrast, involves the turning of the Light of Consciousness back upon Itself toward Its Source, a mode of cognition in which outward objectification is surrendered and Consciousness prior to objectification spontaneously Recognizes Itself. This Recognition is a Knowledge Through Identity wherein the knower, known, and act of knowing are identical. In this identity of subject, object, and knowing, Consciousness is the knower, Consciousness is the known, and Consciousness is the knowing.

 

** In most simple terms, CWO is Awareness Itself transcending content or what one is aware *of.*

After 40 years of meditation, (way earlier, really) I realized the Identity of the One Consciousness in all "aware beings"... i.e., that we are parts and participants in One Universal Being. This is from direct experience , not religious indoctrination or preaching. Same as saying "I directly perceive the physical world with my senses" but it is rather direct gnosis through identity in resonance with the One contemplated. This is the realm of transpersonal psychology, and your calling it "bullshit" does not make it so, but rather exposes your bigotry based on ignorance... total lack of mystic experience. So you deny its validity in the most hostile way.

But I am wasting my time with you.

 

Anyone here actually grasp/"grok" the Merrell-Wolff piece?

Michael

[Boerseun]

Craig, you raise some valid points. Not having English as my first language, there might be some misunderstanding on my part.

 

I have "ego" as the "self", in other words, the mechanism by which you discern yourself amongst all the other possible things/people/cows in the universe. How you "experience" yourself amongst other people.

 

Michael, the following:

My father's brother has two PhD's in theology. He got the first one from the University of the Witwatersrand in the 60's, the second from the University of Pretoria in the 70's. He's a very nice man, learned in his field. He's still wrong, though. They busy themselves with incredibly technical arguments and philosophies without once questioning the premise.

 

This whole business with a "Higher Understanding" coming from a "gnosis" of the "truth", reaching and "ineffable realization" is mere words. Like Craig rightly said, if you're successful in shedding the ego to reach that state, you'll be a helpless infant. I fail to see the application of it whatsoever.

 

Invoking "mysticism" and "spirituality" cuts no muster either. Once again, probably because there's a confusion in terms here.

 

1) What do you understand the term "mysticism" to mean?

2) What do you understand under "spiritual"?

 

I'll be the first to concede that I might have a different interpretation as to the meaning of it, but go and do a define:mysticism on google, and see how many conflicting definitions are out there. Which one are you using?

 

"Mystics", as far as I can tell, are people who profess to some higher experience which can only be achieved by following some set of rituals and modes of thought. GAHD proposed that mystic experiences might merely be the experience of a neurological malfunction. I kinda agree more with the latter.

 

The same with "spirituality". There are pages and pages of completely opposed and mutually exclusive definitions out there - which one are you using? For spirituality, the classic definition (in my neck of the woods, at least) is referring to the attempt by the individual to identify him with the "spiritual world" (another vaguely defined term) in that he has a "spirit" which is not bound to or by his body. This "spirit" might really only be the ego, it might be the inner voice in your head which once again points to a misunderstanding of causality.

 

Given the above, and wielding Occam's Katana Sword, what are we to do? I submit to you that "mysticism" and "spirituality" is true - only if you believe in it. Which requires a leap of faith, seeing as there is no empirical evidence towards either. And seeing as your main arguments rest squarely on these two pillars, they are inseperable. And anything that requires a leap of faith, is, by definintion not science.

 

Hence the original move of this thread to Theology. What you're proposing, is a "belief set" (yes, belief - there's no evidence) that, if it were followed, keeping in mind spirituality and mysticism, will ease our suffering. How's that not a religion?

 

Consider the following:

 

You propose an "ineffable Realization". A Realization which cannot be described, lest we dualise it and remove it from the realm of the mystic to the realm of us poor mortals. Let's put it in layman's terms: There's a way of seeing the universe which cannot be described nor understood in worded terms.

 

Now, let's see it from the human perspective: What's the use?

 

Humans have analytical brains, they have memories, they have everything that you insist stands in the way of "understanding", the "ineffable Realization". What would happen if humans were to shed their egos, their memories, the analysis their brains impose on any sensory input? All of a sudden, imposing this philosophy, you don't see, smell, hear, feel or taste anything. You're not thinking about anything. You're not aware of time passing by - that requires thought. You're not aware of the position your body is in - you've shunned all sensory input. You don't see anything in your mind's eye. All your memories are muted - your inner monologue is dead quiet.

 

Have I got it right so far? Is this the way to proceed to the "ineffable Realization"?

 

Then how, pray tell, does this differ from a deep, dreamless sleep?

 

I just woke up. I didn't dream about anything. The last six hours passed magically, the only way I could tell it was six hours is by the clock on my bedside table's hands having moved. If I had an "ineffable Realization" in my sleep, I don't remember it.

 

Don't you see the inherent contradictions in your proposal? How, if anybody who actually managed it and came to that "ineffable Realization" (the Enlightened ones), do they remember it? How are they able to describe it?

 

Calling me "closed-minded" and a "dogmatist" won't cut it, either - the irony kills me.

[modest]

To all readers of this forum:

I've been a a practicing professional transpersonal psychologist for many years. Do any of you moderators or administrators calling it a theological/religious subject have similar credentials? It includes the fields of meditation, transcendental consciousness, mysticism, spirituality, and enlightenment.

 

Besides the negative effect of egocentric writing (your constant references to your 'credentials' and your huge IQ has accomplished nothing but convincing people that you're insecure), it's also an argument fallacy:

Argument From Authority:

the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.

 

There are degrees and areas of expertise. The speaker is actually claiming to be more expert, in the relevant subject area, than anyone else in the room.

There is also an implied claim that expertise in the area is worth having. For example, claiming expertise in something hopelessly quack (like iridology) is actually an admission that the speaker is gullible.

 

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

** In most simple terms, CWO is Awareness Itself transcending content or what one is aware *of.*

After 40 years of meditation, (way earlier, really) I realized the Identity of the One Consciousness in all "aware beings"... i.e., that we are parts and participants in One Universal Being.

[my bold]

 

The concept's author (Franklin Merrell-Wolff) also believed things like rocks and chairs (unaware, non-beings) were made of and part of the CWO—that the "consciousness without an object" was primary or first, and thinks like objects and energy were nothing but the primordial consciousness itself. It kind of like subjective idealism on a cosmic scale. All things exist because a consciousness is aware of them.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Besides the negative effect of egocentric writing (your constant references to your 'credentials' and your huge IQ has accomplished nothing but convincing people that you're insecure), it's also an argument fallacy:

 

I invoked my credential as a longtime practicing transpersonal psychologist simply to "argue" that, as a legitimate field of psychology, it does indeed belong in the "Psychology" section, even tho it encompasses spirituality, mysticism, enlightenment, etc. Very simple, and straightforward, sans the monstrous egocentric motivation you habitually and constantly attribute to me. (It's your problem. not mine.)

 

Re your:

The concept's author (Franklin Merrell-Wolff) also believed things like rocks and chairs (unaware, non-beings) were made of and part of the CWO—that the "consciousness without an object" was primary or first, and thinks like objects and energy were nothing but the primordial consciousness itself. It kind of like subjective idealism on a cosmic scale. All things exist because a consciousness is aware of them.

 

There is a huge (maybe infinitely large!) difference between the subjective idealism of individual persons who are stuck in the illusion of personal identity separate from "the Whole" (with which you know I disagree) and realization of identity with/in "Kosmos" as the Whole cosmos... One Intelligent Being... usually called "God."

 

In the latter usage, Universal Consciousness is the Creator of cosmos... the physical universe (an ongoing process in the perpetual present, not as per "creationism".) In this sense cosmos is "God's body" and yet Consciousness Itself both manifests (creates) cosmos and transcends it simultaneously. This is the meaning of "non-dual consciousness" as both Awareness Itself and the whole cosmos that consciousness is aware *of.* Both *aspects* of one unified Reality... and the unity transcends the duality above and the multiplicity of "the many" in the philosophical phrase "the One and the many." (The Whole has parts. Yup.)

Michael

Ps: BTW, staff... This thread still belongs in "Psychology." It's a growing field, and the realm of "enlightenment" is, as experienced by the psyche, psychology.

(But here is better than in "Theology," for what it's worth.

[Michael Mooney]

Cherry picking quotes from a handful of practitioners of various traditions doesn't settle my point. Amongst hundreds of mystics in any given tradition, its not wonder the authors of the mystic traditions site can find five who agree on any one issue. What of the many that disagree with each of these points?

 

Michael, what do you say to the people who meditate every day for much of their lives(in some sort mystic tradition, perhaps buddhism). But who claim that what they are experiencing is not, in fact, ultimate reality, but instead a novel sensation/feeling due to changes in brain chemistry?

 

You want other to be open to the possibility that through mystic experiences, direct knowledge of reality is possible. My question is- are you open to the possibility that mystic experiences are subjective, and not in fact an objective experience of reality?

 

If I outline some experiments that will convince me that mystic experience are objective experiences of the universe, will you outline some things that will convince you that they are subjective experiences that have more to do with how the brain works than how the universe does?

 

Erasmus,

If you peruse all the resources of the Center for Sacred Sciences site you will find hundreds of quotes from mystics of all major Traditions and some with no tradition, all in agreement about what the site (and I) calls gnosis or enlightenment.

 

Re second paragraph: There are a lot of "spiritual disciplines" to choose from. Each must find the one that brings the practitioner into the state of ego-self transcendence ("selflessness.") Once the illusion of personal "self" or "identity" (separate from the One/Whole identity) is transcended, everyone experiences "unity with God" in whatever language. "Cosmic Consciousness" is language with less "baggage" and religious reference, which I prefer.

For myself, I sat an hour a day in silence... (with no tradition and only an inner "tone" which I was born with as a meditation focus)... for 25 years before by "breakthrough" by whatever name. It was peaceful and blissful all those years, which is what kept me going, but the 'transformation" called gnosis is a radical transcendence of "personal identity" as "one individual separate from the One Who is universal, omnipresent consciousness itself.

 

Re

" My question is- are you open to the possibility that mystic experiences are subjective, and not in fact an objective experience of reality? "

...

 

My 25 yrs of meditatation felt blissful but still personal and subjective until the transformative breakthrough. Then everything said or written by every enlightened mystic I had ever heard or read made perfect sense, and I was in complete harmony with all of them. (See again qoutes in link above and the Merrell-Wolff piece as examples.)

 

"Reality" is indeed transformed upon such universally recognized "Awakening."

 

As for experiments verifying consciousness as a creative force.... again... please read "The Intention Experiment" compiled by Lynne McTaggart . It is full of very well controlled experiments... real science!... on the subject.

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

As for experiments verifying consciousness as a creative force.... again... please read "The Intention Experiment" compiled by Lynne McTaggart . It is full of very well controlled experiments... real science!... on the subject.

 

None of the intention experiment research has been published in a journal, to the best of my knowledge. i.e. it hasn't made it through peer review. However, I'm skeptical of a psychologist attempting to measure "bio-photonics" as the subject of photon detection is so far outside the realm of the psychologist's experience and training that I doubt he can run adequate controlled experiments.

 

But you didn't answer my most important question- is there anything (evidence or otherwise) that would cause you to doubt that experiences meditating are an experience of an ultimate objective reality?

[GAHD]

Humans have analytical brains, they have memories, they have everything that you insist stands in the way of "understanding", the "ineffable Realization". What would happen if humans were to shed their egos, their memories, the analysis their brains impose on any sensory input? All of a sudden, imposing this philosophy, you don't see, smell, hear, feel or taste anything. You're not thinking about anything. You're not aware of time passing by - that requires thought. You're not aware of the position your body is in - you've shunned all sensory input. You don't see anything in your mind's eye. All your memories are muted - your inner monologue is dead quiet...how, pray tell, does this differ from a deep, dreamless sleep?...just woke up. I didn't dream about anything. The last six hours passed magically, the only way I could tell it was six hours is by the clock on my bedside table's hands having moved. If I had an "ineffable Realization" in my sleep, I don't remember it.

 

Seems like a good description from my perspective. I actually turned to meditation myself a while ago when I was suffering from some horrible insomnia.

The methodology I used involved finding a comfortable position, then tightening all the muscle groups I was aware of until they almost cramped, then actually "relaxing" them. (You'd be surprised what muscles are semi-flexed even when you think you're relaxed because you're USED to them being kinda tight.)

After I was sure I was actually relaxed I'd go about doing the same with my mind, letting whatever thoughts came up show themselves and then get filed away. In my case I wouldn't say my senses were 'dulled', but without letting myself be distracted by external or internal references time did kinda lose meaning.

I did this for a while and found that around 4 hours of it was easily as restful as a full night's "sleep". It IS relaxing and I'd definitely say peaceful. However, I can also say I remembered the experience as I was conscious, just unconcerned.

 

Having said that piece, I still say any feelings of "transcendence" are the result of your Imagination running away with you(or possibly a seizure). That state is so close to sleep, I can easily see your brain "doing what's natural" and dreaming. Also, as you are still conscious, I can see someone losing the ability to discern reality from imagination; that doesn't make it real.

 

[Jway]

After I was sure I was actually relaxed I'd go about doing the same with my mind, letting whatever thoughts came up show themselves and then get filed away. In my case I wouldn't say my senses were 'dulled', but without letting myself be distracted by external or internal references time did kinda lose meaning.

I did this for a while and found that around 4 hours of it was easily as restful as a full night's "sleep". It IS relaxing and I'd definitely say peaceful. However, I can also say I remembered the experience as I was conscious, just unconcerned.

 

IMO, and in my experience, the aspect of rest you cite is powerful. I also believe you have cited high values in meditation - rest and peace. That you were conscious and not out cold (as sleep does to the mind) is where the "power" resides.

 

You are claiming, it is as restful as full night's sleep, which sounds like something that someone (who is anal) might want to measure. Personally, I believe that it just works, is sufficient, though don't believe I can speak for all on the "it works" category. Then again, I am not aware of any insomnia remedy that works for all, well other than passing away (aka death). LOL.

 

Having said that piece, I still say any feelings of "transcendence" are the result of your Imagination running away with you(or possibly a seizure). That state is so close to sleep, I can easily see your brain "doing what's natural" and dreaming. Also, as you are still conscious, I can see someone losing the ability to discern reality from imagination; that doesn't make it real.

 

"Imagination running away" is perhaps a metaphor for something else you wish to say, but it isn't, IMO, way off, if taken literally and without emotional definitions. You stated you were peaceful, which speaks to me a sense of gentle confidence and centeredness. Hardly imagination running away, though imagination, as you noted, would naturally be impacted by this.

 

Some would say, when you meditate, you are detaching from the body, and is how the "transcendence" occurs. Again, IMO, and in my experience, this happens a wee bit more often than we may care to claim on a daily level. It can happen in matter of an instant and last but an instant. In meditation experiences, one is calling forth awareness of it that is more than an instant. And awareness of it that is (more) conscious.

 

Also, in my experience, imagination can run away just doing whatever it is we do in the physical world. I would say I see it daily both in myself and in others. These may be mild cases, but I feel the point stands.

 

In my own experience, and observations, discernment is paramount to "peaceful meditation." There are layers to this stuff that this thread may never touch upon, and that aren't all that uncommon. If using meditation only to see if you can attune with the entities of the 7th moon of (inserting interesting planet name here), because you heard they are dynamite beings that are enlightened, then I personally think you are missing out on the usefulness and grace that comes naturally from meditation.

 

Anyway, I ramble.

 

Jway

[modest]

sans the monstrous egocentric motivation you habitually and constantly attribute to me. (It's your problem. not mine.)

 

Missed opportunity. You should have quoted your sage :lol:

 

Franklin Merrell-Wolff's experience ... - Google Books

 

There is a huge (maybe infinitely large!) difference between the subjective idealism of individual persons who are stuck in the illusion of personal identity separate from "the Whole" (with which you know I disagree) and realization of identity with/in "Kosmos" as the Whole cosmos... One Intelligent Being... usually called "God."

 

Berkeley held that the universe persisted in the absence of human observation because God was aware of it. The huge difference you put forward as separating Wolff's idea from subjective idealism is, in point of fact, part of subjective idealism.

 

Consciousness-without-an-object is a form of the very subjective idealism you reject. Switch Berkeley's monotheistic god concept with a pantheistic one and dress it up with some spirituality and there ya go.

 

The question is, what does it benefit you to think of the world as a manifestation of consciousness? Why say that a person's body and brain are a property of awareness rather than saying awareness is a property of body and brain? Perhaps it deludes a person into thinking they have some special connection to the universe, to other people, and to god. But, what realistically and scientifically comes of it?

 

If a guru in New York is of the same consciousness as a guru in Los Angeles then I'd at the least expect them to be able to communicate with each other using this shared consciousness. Being able to lift an x-wing fighter out of the swamp would be nice too. But, there are no such consequences of this "consciousness-without-an-object". It's Russell's teapot. It's completely unfalsifiable and outside the sphere of science.

 

When you show that there is a logical possibility that this assertion of CWO can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment then you'll get a positive reception to it at a science site. Do you understand the reason for that—the reason for the scientific method?

 

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~edmin/Pamphlets/Pamphlet%2003%20-%20Scientific%20Method%20and%20the%20Burden%20of%20Proof.pdf

 

Your assertions of truth, by themselves, are of no worth—no matter how smart or qualified you consider yourself.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

 

-Richard P. Feynman

 

~modest

[GAHD]

"Imagination running away" is perhaps a metaphor for something else you wish to say, but it isn't, IMO, way off, if taken literally and without emotional definitions....Some would say, when you meditate, you are detaching from the body, and is how the "transcendence" occurs. Again, IMO, and in my experience, this happens a wee bit more often than we may care to claim on a daily level. It can happen in matter of an instant and last but an instant. In meditation experiences, one is calling forth awareness of it that is more than an instant. And awareness of it that is (more) conscious.

 

I think you misinterpret what I wrote; I never felt anything like 'greater consciousness', nor 'transcendence'; I was just aware of myself, my physical body, and my thoughts or lack thereof at any particular moment. The neatest part of it was feeling the blood pulsing through my limbs, that's stuff I just didn't notice I COULD feel(shy of a nasty bruise or cut) consciously up to that point.

 

Also, in my experience, imagination can run away just doing whatever it is we do in the physical world. I would say I see it daily both in myself and in others. These may be mild cases, but I feel the point stands...on the usefulness and grace that comes naturally from meditation.

 

Happens with some people, mine's always been fairly focused or at least so I like to think.

 

And yeah, it certainly was useful after being awake for a few days straight.