everything else does .....

echi wrote:

IFeelFree--
How is a "spiritual" experience different from experiencing an altered state of awareness?

A spiritual experience could be described as an "altered state of awareness" that reveals some valuable insight about your identity or function. This insight should have profound, lasting consequences for you personally, at least. For example, if I experience a state of pure consciousness during meditation, I become directly aware of the distinction between thought forms and the field of consciousness. I'm able to see my true identity as distinct from my conceptual mind. This is the beginning of the collapse of ego-identification, or liberation, as described in Eastern mysticism. Your true identity, or Self, can only be known through experience. If I simply tell you that you are unbounded pure consciousness, that is just another mental concept. It is not the reality, and so it does not provide real insight. As another example, if as a result spiritual practice I experience a deep sense of peace and restful alertness during my daily activity, this changes how I act and react to events. Instead of becoming disturbed by events that arise, I am more likely to maintain an inner calmness that helps me to react in an appropriate manner. I am less rattled by events that unfold. As a third example, the experience of awakening of chakras (spinal centers) allows me to be more aware of energy flows within the body. I can more easily sense the effects of various actions upon my mind and body. If I eat too much or the wrong food, sleep too little or too much, lose my temper, ignore my sense of what is the correct way to behave, etc., I can sense a waning of energy flows in the chakras. On the other hand, if I live in a more balanced way, take care of my health, treat others as I would want to be treated, meditate regularly, etc., I notice that the energy flows become stronger and more blissful.

It is conceivable that similar "altered states of awareness" might be achieved in other ways, such as through drugs, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, or some other methods. However, that is not something I know much about, so I stick with what works for me.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

echi wrote:
IFeelFree--
How is a "spiritual" experience different from experiencing an altered state of awareness?

A spiritual experience could be described as an "altered state of awareness" that reveals some valuable insight about your identity or function.

How do you determine the value of an insight? Is there a process? How do you know an insight from a fantasy?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
echi wrote:
IFeelFree--
How is a "spiritual" experience different from experiencing an altered state of awareness?

A spiritual experience could be described as an "altered state of awareness" that reveals some valuable insight about your identity or function.
How do you determine the value of an insight? Is there a process? How do you know an insight from a fantasy?

The value of an insight is its consequences for you personally. Does it change your life in a significant way? Does it provide understanding that is pragmatically useful, or profoundly beneficial to your psychology? Does it provide real understanding that produces positive changes how you live or understand the world? That is why I questioned neologist when he talked about Satan being the cause of man's suffering. I didn't question the truth of his statement. I asked in what way do you benefit from that knowledge? How is it helpful to believe that? He couldn't really answer.

A fantasy is a belief based on magical thinking. It is a dissociation from, or denial of, reality. It is often demonstrably false. It is irrational. Unfortunately, many religious people are guilty of this. They postulate all kinds of beliefs that don't agree with reality as we know it. That is the problem with "faith".

0 Replies

I am pleased with echi's distinction between "spiritual experience" and "altered state of awareness." Every time we get drunk or lose our tempers we are in altered states of awareness, i.e., deviations from our usual states of mind). Moreover, when experiencing an insight from the reading of philosophy that too is an alteration of our extant state of mind.
But I do not consider all forms of enlightenment to take the form of sudden alterations in awareness (as in the phenomena labeled kensho, moksha, satori, cosmic consciousness, etc.). When I think of how I see things now in my mature years and how I saw them in my youth the difference is massive. If, hypothetically, I could have made this shift in perspectives suddenly at the age of, say, 16, it would have seemed to be a massive epiphany. What I'm getting at is the belief that spiritual growth can come gradually from just living a nutritious life style (especially with the help of regular meditation). One gets equally wet whether it results from a downpour (as is sudden blasts of insight) or a constant drizzle (as in the gradual process of maturation).
To me, the most important aspect of spiritual insight is the feeling, or realization, that you are not a separate entity (ego) surrounded by and separate from the world. This is the dualistic fallacy of the subject-object split, a fallacy that is built into our very grammar--the default metaphysics of society. When one meditates for a sustained time, one comes to realize that one's perceptions of "objects" and "physical states" are not the objects of a subjective experience; they do not happen TO you; they ARE you. You (so-called subject) and your experiences (of so-called objects or content of experience) are one. This dissolution of the dualistic split reflects the truth in my favorite dictum from the Upanishads, "That art thou" (tat tvam asi). Its spiritual significance is life-fulfilling, the realization of your intrinsic oneness with the World. Is this not the true meaning of "religion" (re-connection)?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

But I do not consider all forms of enlightenment to take the form of sudden alterations in awareness (as in the phenomena labeled kensho, moksha, satori, cosmic consciousness, etc.). When I think of how I see things now in my mature years and how I saw them in my youth the difference is massive. If, hypothetically, I could have made this shift in perspectives suddenly at the age of, say, 16, it would have seemed to be a massive epiphany. What I'm getting at is the belief that spiritual growth can come gradually from just living a nutritious life style (especially with the help of regular meditation). One gets equally wet whether it results from a downpour (as is sudden blasts of insight) or a constant drizzle (as in the gradual process of maturation).

To me, the most important aspect of spiritual insight is the feeling, or realization, that you are not a separate entity (ego) surrounded by and separate from the world. This is the dualistic fallacy of the subject-object split, a fallacy that is built into our very grammar--the default metaphysics of society. When one meditates for a sustained time, one comes to realize that one's perceptions of "objects" and "physical states" are not the objects of a subjective experience; they do not happen TO you; they ARE you. You (so-called subject) and your experiences (of so-called objects or content of experience) are one. This dissolution of the dualistic split reflects the truth in my favorite dictum from the Upanishads, "That art thou" (tat tvam asi). Its spiritual significance is life-fulfilling, the realization of your intrinsic oneness with the World. Is this not the true meaning of "religion" (re-connection)?

Yes. Exactly so. The great Oneness of being.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I am pleased with echi's distinction between "spiritual experience" and "altered state of awareness." Every time we get drunk or lose our tempers we are in altered states of awareness, i.e., deviations from our usual states of mind). Moreover, when experiencing an insight from the reading of philosophy that too is an alteration of our extant state of mind.

Usually, the consequences from getting drunk, losing our temper, or reading philosophy are not sufficiently profound to rise to what most people would call a "spiritual experience". (There may be exceptions.) Anything we think or do alters our awareness to some extent. However, spiritual experiences are those experiences that change us in some fundamental way, or permanently and profoundly change the way we think or understand ourselves and the world.

Quote:

But I do not consider all forms of enlightenment to take the form of sudden alterations in awareness (as in the phenomena labeled kensho, moksha, satori, cosmic consciousness, etc.). When I think of how I see things now in my mature years and how I saw them in my youth the difference is massive. If, hypothetically, I could have made this shift in perspectives suddenly at the age of, say, 16, it would have seemed to be a massive epiphany. What I'm getting at is the belief that spiritual growth can come gradually from just living a nutritious life style (especially with the help of regular meditation). One gets equally wet whether it results from a downpour (as is sudden blasts of insight) or a constant drizzle (as in the gradual process of maturation).

I would guess that sudden, dramatic spiritual changes are the exception rather than the rule for most people. Spiritual growth is a process of psychological maturation that we all experience to some degree as we grow from childhood to adulthood. It has different stages -- childhood, adolescence, responsible adult, religious or self-transcending, cosmic consciousness, etc., each stage corresponding to awakening of one of the 7 chakras or spinal centers. However, spiritual experiences can arise at any stage. These may involve sudden changes in awareness that are temporary, semi-permanent, or permanent.

Quote:

To me, the most important aspect of spiritual insight is the feeling, or realization, that you are not a separate entity (ego) surrounded by and separate from the world. This is the dualistic fallacy of the subject-object split, a fallacy that is built into our very grammar--the default metaphysics of society. When one meditates for a sustained time, one comes to realize that one's perceptions of "objects" and "physical states" are not the objects of a subjective experience; they do not happen TO you; they ARE you. You (so-called subject) and your experiences (of so-called objects or content of experience) are one. This dissolution of the dualistic split reflects the truth in my favorite dictum from the Upanishads, "That art thou" (tat tvam asi). Its spiritual significance is life-fulfilling, the realization of your intrinsic oneness with the World. Is this not the true meaning of "religion" (re-connection)?

The first insight (usually in late childhood) is that you are a separate ego. That is the attitude of adolescence -- rebellion, independence, separateness. As a person grows toward adulthood, they become increasingly aware of their connectedness with others. They become more social, less sense of separateness. As spiritual awareness grows, a person discovers that he is not his thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc., but rather the field of pure transcendental consciousness. There is different kind of separateness -- I am the Self, not the objects of perception, thoughts, etc. Further spiritual growth bridges the gap between the Self and the non-Self until there is complete Unity consciousness -- no separation whatsoever between me and the world, or between me and God.

0 Replies

IFeelFree, Interesting points, I do not understand the reality of "pure transcendental conscious". To me, at present, pure consciousness sounds a bit like "empty mind" in the sense of awareness-without-content. This phrase is sometimes used in Zen Buddhism, but I tend to think there it refers to a mental posture of non-attachment* to passing impressions, sensations, feelings and thoughts rather than awareness-sans-content. I tend to think of consciousness as awareness OF something, but that ultimately that something is always me (remember: tat tvam asi). This awareness--or intuitive presumption--that "I" am really everything is what I mean by Self (as opposed to the little "self" of ego)--some buddhist label the difference as Big Mind vs. little mind.

* This "non-attachment" differs from the "detachment" of mind from normal consciousness-qua-content that you suggest when you say that "a person...is not his thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc., but rather the field of pure transcendental consciousness."

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

IFeelFree, Interesting points, I do not understand the reality of "pure transcendental conscious". To me, at present, pure consciousness sounds a bit like "empty mind" in the sense of awareness-without-content. This phrase is sometimes used in Zen Buddhism, but I tend to think there it refers to a mental posture of non-attachment* to passing impressions, sensations, feelings and thoughts rather than awareness-sans-content. I tend to think of consciousness as awareness OF something, but that ultimately that something is always me (remember: tat tvam asi). This awareness--or intuitive presumption--that "I" am really everything is what I mean by Self (as opposed to the little "self" of ego)--some buddhist label the difference as Big Mind vs. little mind.

* This "non-attachment" differs from the "detachment" of mind from normal consciousness-qua-content that you suggest when you say that "a person...is not his thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc., but rather the field of pure transcendental consciousness."

Yes, pure consciousness is exactly "'empty mind' in the sense of awareness-without-content". It is consciousness without an object. This can only be experienced when awareness is drawn within either spontaneously, or by some spiritual practice such as meditation. The self is experienced as a field of pure consciousness devoid of thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. The sense of self becomes the Self -- the unbounded field of pure consciousness.

Non-attachment is furthered by the experience of pure consciousness. As identity shifts from the conceptual mind to pure consciousness, attachment to objects is reduced and eventually ends. Pure consciousness is experienced during moments when awareness of objects is withdrawn (such as during meditation), while non-attachment is experienced in daily life. When the source of bliss, energy, love, and intelligence is experienced within, sensory objects begin to have less of a hold on the mind. Non-attachment grows. This does not lead to passivity (as a rule), but rather to a more balanced life. One is not constantly seeking fulfillment in the objects of the senses (or even subjective experiences). There is more inner peace, less seeking.

0 Replies

IFIF, After thirty years of meditating I have not experienced a state of pure conscioiusness devoid of thoughts as a positive state of mind. Indeed, I have often passed a half-hour or more with no sense of time passing, a state in which thoughts and sensations pass by without my focusing or grasping of them. It is very pleasant but not particularly edifying. What DOES seem to be a kind of "enlightenment" is the realization--as I've said before--that there is only experience, rather than a subject having experiences of objects. When in a room meditating the room is my Self. Self and context do not merge; there is a realization that they were never separate (again: tat tvam asi). THAT, I would say IS edifying and even quietly blissful.

Perhaps with time I will realize what you are describing.

I DO agree that with non-attachment greater peace results from the cessation of grasping of objects of experience.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

IFIF, After thirty years of meditating I have not experienced a state of pure conscioiusness devoid of thoughts as a positive state of mind. Indeed, I have often passed a half-hour or more with no sense of time passing, a state in which thoughts and sensations pass by without my focusing or grasping of them.

In the beginning, that is how pure consciousness is experienced -- the passage of time without any particular thing having occurred. Immediately prior to complete transcendence, subtle levels of consciousness may be experienced that are often experienced as unfocused thoughts and sensations. The state of your nervous system varies from day to day. On some days, transcendence may come easily. Other days, not at all. Other days you might be caught "in between" at some subtle levels of consciousness, deeper than ordinary waking consciousness, where thoughts are abstract and unfocused.

Quote:

It is very pleasant but not particularly edifying.

The purpose of meditation (at least in the beginning) is to eliminate the blockages to maintaining pure consciousness along with ordinary waking consciousness. It is a little like taking out the garbage -- necessary but not particularly edifying in itself.

Quote:

What DOES seem to be a kind of "enlightenment" is the realization--as I've said before--that there is only experience, rather than a subject having experiences of objects. When in a room meditating the room is my Self. Self and context do not merge; there is a realization that they were never separate (again: tat tvam asi). THAT, I would say IS edifying and even quietly blissful.

As the conceptual mind, or ego, starts to become undone, it leaves just the pure experience without the usual mental chatter and inner commentary that tends to go on when there is compulsive thinking. The Self may be felt as a peaceful, even blissful backdrop to experience.

Quote:

Perhaps with time I will realize what you are describing.

It sounds like you are having good experiences already. Remember -- meditation should effortless, natural. Don't resist whatever arises.

Quote:

I DO agree that with non-attachment greater peace results from the cessation of grasping of objects of experience.

Exactly. When you are not totally identified with forms, consciousness -- who you are -- becomes freed its imprisonment in form. It comes as stillness, a subtle peace deep within you. Then you can enjoy the things of this world without giving them an importance and significance they don't have.

0 Replies

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

echi wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
echi wrote:
IFeelFree--
How is a "spiritual" experience different from experiencing an altered state of awareness?

A spiritual experience could be described as an "altered state of awareness" that reveals some valuable insight about your identity or function.
How do you determine the value of an insight? Is there a process? How do you know an insight from a fantasy?

The value of an insight is its consequences for you personally. Does it change your life in a significant way? Does it provide understanding that is pragmatically useful, or profoundly beneficial to your psychology? Does it provide real understanding that produces positive changes how you live or understand the world? . . .

I am sure that most religious people will claim that their faith is pragmatically useful, profoundly beneficial and provides them with real understanding. Their evidence, like your's, is the depth of emotion that is associated with a particular idea or experience.

IFF wrote:

A fantasy is a belief based on magical thinking. It is a dissociation from, or denial of, reality. It is often demonstrably false. It is irrational. Unfortunately, many religious people are guilty of this. They postulate all kinds of beliefs that don't agree with reality as we know it. That is the problem with "faith".

If spirituality does not dissociate from reality then why is it not described in scientific terms? Why does spirituality deviate from science or philosophy?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
echi wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
echi wrote:
IFeelFree--
How is a "spiritual" experience different from experiencing an altered state of awareness?

A spiritual experience could be described as an "altered state of awareness" that reveals some valuable insight about your identity or function.
How do you determine the value of an insight? Is there a process? How do you know an insight from a fantasy?

The value of an insight is its consequences for you personally. Does it change your life in a significant way? Does it provide understanding that is pragmatically useful, or profoundly beneficial to your psychology? Does it provide real understanding that produces positive changes how you live or understand the world? . . .
I am sure that most religious people will claim that their faith is pragmatically useful, profoundly beneficial and provides them with real understanding. Their evidence, like your's, is the depth of emotion that is associated with a particular idea or experience.

Religious belief probably does have a number of positive effects on individuals, at least in some cases. It may also have negative effects, such as the decision to blow yourself and others up because of faith in Islam, or withhold needed blood transfusions if you're a Jehovah's Witness. If the only evidence is "depth of emotion" than that would be insufficient to assign much credibility or importance to spirituality. There should be observable positive changes in a person's life, some measurable health benefits, or some obvious improvement in their psychological functioning. Spirituality should be more than merely consoling. It should transform individuals in ways that make them more rational, well-adjusted, compassionate, and intelligent. Faith-based mainstream religion largely fails at this.

My path has been primarily yoga and Eastern mysticism. There are measurable physiological and psychological health benefits to meditation practice. Also, this path has effected my life in ways that are objectively beneficial -- When I began these practices, I stopped smoking, stopped alcohol, went back to school, became less tense, more peaceful, less defensive, etc., and I did so without accepting a belief system that required me to withdraw from the world into a cult, believe in things that are demonstrably false, take on some new kind of identity that I would have to defend, or convert others. I live in the world as an ordinary person. If you knew me casually you wouldn't notice anything "spiritual" about me, except perhaps that I have a calm demeanor.

Quote:

IFF wrote:
A fantasy is a belief based on magical thinking. It is a dissociation from, or denial of, reality. It is often demonstrably false. It is irrational. Unfortunately, many religious people are guilty of this. They postulate all kinds of beliefs that don't agree with reality as we know it. That is the problem with "faith".
If spirituality does not dissociate from reality then why is it not described in scientific terms? Why does spirituality deviate from science or philosophy?

Spirituality does not concern itself exclusively, or even primarily, with objective experiences. It concerns itself largely with the human psyche and subjective experience. Also, spirituality is not based on reductionism. It does not attempt to analyze the world by reducing it to its component parts, and so the approach of science is of limited use. Spirituality is integrative -- its domain is the totality of experience, the "big picture". When people want to know why the sky is blue, or how the universe evolved, they turn to science. When they want to know about the nature of consciousness, what happens when you die, whether God exists, or the root cause of suffering, they tend to turn to spirituality, because science really isn't equipped to answer these types of questions. As for philosophy, that is primarily an intellectual exercise that ignores intuitive and spiritual knowing. It is an attempt to try to solve the mysteries of existence using reason alone. As important as reason is, it is a "necessary but insufficient condition" for real understanding.

0 Replies

IFIF, very good statement.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

IFIF, very good statement.

Thanks!

0 Replies

IFF, Thanks for the invite to this thraed. I'll just bm for now.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

There should be observable positive changes in a person's life, some measurable health benefits, or some obvious improvement in their psychological functioning. Spirituality should be more than merely consoling. It should transform individuals in ways that make them more rational, well-adjusted, compassionate, and intelligent. There are measurable physiological and psychological health benefits to meditation practice. Also, this path has effected my life in ways that are objectively beneficial -- When I began these practices, I stopped smoking, stopped alcohol, went back to school, became less tense, more peaceful, less defensive, etc., and I did so without accepting a belief system that required me to withdraw from the world into a cult, believe in things that are demonstrably false, take on some new kind of identity that I would have to defend, or convert others. I live in the world as an ordinary person. If you knew me casually you wouldn't notice anything "spiritual" about me, except perhaps that I have a calm demeanor.

Are you suggesting that the benefits of holding spiritual beliefs should serve as evidence for their literal truth?

IFF wrote:

Spirituality does not concern itself exclusively, or even primarily, with objective experiences. It concerns itself largely with the human psyche and subjective experience. Also, spirituality is not based on reductionism. It does not attempt to analyze the world by reducing it to its component parts, and so the approach of science is of limited use. Spirituality is integrative -- its domain is the totality of experience, the "big picture". When people want to know why the sky is blue, or how the universe evolved, they turn to science. When they want to know about the nature of consciousness, what happens when you die, whether God exists, or the root cause of suffering, they tend to turn to spirituality, because science really isn't equipped to answer these types of questions.

Which of these questions has been answered by spirituality?

IFF wrote:

As for philosophy, that is primarily an intellectual exercise that ignores intuitive and spiritual knowing.

It can't be ignored if it can't be known.

IFF wrote:

]It is an attempt to try to solve the mysteries of existence using reason alone. As important as reason is, it is a "necessary but insufficient condition" for real understanding.

Why do you suppose reason is insufficient?

0 Replies

echi, You are asking the right questions in response to IFF's stated beliefs. Keep up the good work; I'm also interested in how IFF responds.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
There should be observable positive changes in a person's life, some measurable health benefits, or some obvious improvement in their psychological functioning. Spirituality should be more than merely consoling. It should transform individuals in ways that make them more rational, well-adjusted, compassionate, and intelligent. There are measurable physiological and psychological health benefits to meditation practice. Also, this path has effected my life in ways that are objectively beneficial -- When I began these practices, I stopped smoking, stopped alcohol, went back to school, became less tense, more peaceful, less defensive, etc., and I did so without accepting a belief system that required me to withdraw from the world into a cult, believe in things that are demonstrably false, take on some new kind of identity that I would have to defend, or convert others. I live in the world as an ordinary person. If you knew me casually you wouldn't notice anything "spiritual" about me, except perhaps that I have a calm demeanor.
Are you suggesting that the benefits of holding spiritual beliefs should serve as evidence for their literal truth?

No. I'm not advocating a faith-based approach to spirituality. Belief should be founded on evidence, which should include your own experience.

Quote:

IFF wrote:
Spirituality does not concern itself exclusively, or even primarily, with objective experiences. It concerns itself largely with the human psyche and subjective experience. Also, spirituality is not based on reductionism. It does not attempt to analyze the world by reducing it to its component parts, and so the approach of science is of limited use. Spirituality is integrative -- its domain is the totality of experience, the "big picture". When people want to know why the sky is blue, or how the universe evolved, they turn to science. When they want to know about the nature of consciousness, what happens when you die, whether God exists, or the root cause of suffering, they tend to turn to spirituality, because science really isn't equipped to answer these types of questions.
Which of these questions has been answered by spirituality?

Many people have found personal answers to these questions based on their own experience. I have vivid memories of a past life, I have had experiences of higher states of consciousness, I have experienced profound states of bliss, energy, love, and peace which is the way that I understand God, I have seen changes in my awareness that confirm the notion that the ego is the root cause of suffering. I don't expect these answers to convince you or anyone else. Unlike science, spirituality is mainly a personal journey. We each have to answer the "big questions" for ourselves. There's little or no value in looking up the answers in a book.

Quote:

IFF wrote:
As for philosophy, that is primarily an intellectual exercise that ignores intuitive and spiritual knowing.
It can't be ignored if it can't be known.

It can also be ignored even if it can be known. Western culture emphasizes an intellectual disposition at the expense intuitive and psychic modes of knowing.

Quote:

IFF wrote:
]It is an attempt to try to solve the mysteries of existence using reason alone. As important as reason is, it is a "necessary but insufficient condition" for real understanding.
Why do you suppose reason is insufficient?

Because humans are not computing machines. We are conscious. We are self-aware (to varying degrees). We experience thoughts, sensations, emotions, and have the capacity to be aware of our connectedness to others.

0 Replies

While it does seem that Eastern and Western cultures emphasize intuitive and rational approaches to understanding respectively, we must not exaggerate the differences. It is more a question of cultural "elaboration". The West elaborates on the value of reason and the East elaborates on the value of intuition, but both forms are critical in both areas.
I feel that intuition (as predominantly unconscious activity) operates critical in rational endeavors, even mathematical study, and rationality (as predominantly conscious activity) informs much intuitive understanding.

0 Replies

everything else does .....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know