Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 http://webpages.charter.net/jspeyrer/persing.htm Book Review - Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs, Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. Praeger Publishers, NY, NY, 1987, $65.00, pps. 164 Reviewed by John A. Speyrer "A religious personality is neither good nor bad in itself. It is no more good or bad than an extrovert, an introvert, a sensitizer, or a repressor. It is a consequence of reinforcement history and the conditions that contribute to temporal lobe sensitivity." --Dr. Michael A. Persinger The title of this book brings up the issue of whether it belongs in a website devoted to the regressive psychotherapies. But it does belong because both mysticism and the regressive psychotherapies use material from one's very earliest beginnings as the play dough for their processes. I do not believe that the author has sufficiently emphasized the distinction between and the significance of nurturant memories versus traumatic memories of infancy and very early childhood. Dr. Persinger does, however, stress the crucial importance of the infant's interaction with its parents as the source of material experienced during the God Experience. How the mother and father relate to the child is considered of utmost importance in the production of future God Experiences. Indeed, the author returns many times to the theme that "infantile memories of parental images (perhaps even perinatal representations proprioception), and . . . images from before four to five years of age," are the building materials from which is formed and which becomes the bases of such mystical experiences. [The quotation above is from Persinger's article, Religious and Mystical Experiences as Artifacts of Temporal Lobe Function: A General Hypothesis, (1983)]. Michael A. Persinger is a neuro-psychologist who has written about and researched extensively the effects of electro-magnetic stimulation of the human brain. In this book, Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs, he has hypothesized that the personal religious experience with God is a result of electro-magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobes of the brain caused by micro-seizures, oftentimes the results of overwhelming physiological stress and anxiety. He writes in the Preface of the book that these resultant God Experiences are "tempered by the person's learning history" and emphasizes that the memories are not stored in the temporal lobe. That part of the brain only contains the key which unlocks the stored sensory inputs from other parts of the brain from whence is drawn long suppressed and repressed memories from one's earliest past. Throughout the book, which is written from a behavorial viewpoint, he often reminds us that the ultimate origins of the content of the God Experience is from the relationship between the infant and its parents. Unfortunately, we are only tantalized with this bit of information since he does not go into details about exactly what it is in the relationship between the parent(s) and the infant which might determine the content of the God Experience. [see on this website, Early Life Events and Their Influence On Mysticism In the Writings of Michael Persinger .] Dr. Persinger writes that the scientific study of subjects considered sacred is not a popular undertaking. Over the years many of our most sacrosanct beliefs have been overturned. The earth is no longer believed to be the center of the universe and the belief in special creation has been successfully challenged. The question of mankind's rationality and whether we possess free will has been a more recent and upsettling query. He contends that if our beliefs that the God Experiences come from a God who truly exists, we need not be concerned, as our beliefs may stand the test of scientific inquiry. This book delves into the two types of God Belief: The God Experience and the God Concept. Both the concept of God and the mystical experience of God are deeply influenced by our early upbringing. Our concepts of the attributes of God are determined by how we viewed our parents. As infants we bestowed God-like characteristics on them - I believe, particularly our mother. She was omnipotent and omniscient. If she was absent or cruel then these same attributes are ones we associate with God. This pairing of God equals Mother or God equals Father is unconscious and colors to a great extent our concept of God. The evolution of the brain allowed the temporal lobe to develop features which enable us to have the God Experience. With its adjacent organs, the hippocamus and amygdala, the temporal lobe became the key which when acted upon by our feelings of extreme personal anxiety allows these parts of the brain to open stored memories from our earliest existence. These elements are used to construct the very personal and meaningful episodes of closeness or oneness with the deity. As we developed more thinking and reflecting power due to an ever increasing size of our cortex, we became able to contemplate our own upcoming death. The temporal lobe with its adjacent structures allowed us to have spiritual experiences which in turn reduced this death anxiety. The medical condition of temporal lobe epilepsy allows us the convenience of having a living laboratory to study the actions of the temporal lobe in producing the God Experience. These epileptics usually have gross abnormalities or lesions of the temporal lobe. The God Experience can be also be the result of much milder seizures, to which all of us are, to some degree, susceptible. Temporal lobe psychotics can have daily episodes of being one with God. If the psychosis is due to a temporal lobe lesion, its removal eliminates the God Experiences and mystical preoccupations. Even in cases of non-psychotics with temporal lobe lesions, but with grand mal or petit mal seizures, surgery may effectively remove the seizures but at the same time will also remove their God Experiences. Transient micro-seizures (with absent gross pathologies) are more common in the episodic God Experiences of the more normal person. In all classes of temporal lobe involvement these low-grade seizures can trigger very meaningful and profound experiences. All feel that they have been blessed with a personal visit or communication from God. The God Experience can and does change lives. New understandings arise and priorities change as new beliefs and behaviors immediately become accepted. A drug addict can be transformed into a spirit- filled proselytizing born-again Christian. One's mood becomes heightened. After having a God Experience, a person may feel that he has been chosen, inspired and energized by the Almighty to do important things in His name. Dr. Persinger writes: "The power of the God Experience shames any known therapy. With a single burst in the temporal lobe, people find structure and meaning in seconds. With it comes the personal conviction of truth and the sense of self-selection." This is what happened to the evangelist, Billy Graham. Among the many conditions that promote a God Experience are physiological stress and nervous tension. "The most profound God Experiences" Persinger writes, "occur after the sudden loss (death) of a close loved one." He writes that the profundity of the experience is in proportion to the degree of the severity of the loss or of the degree of stress. Seriously disabling accidents and injuries, privations and financial losses can precipitate a more deeply moving experience. Ingesting certain drugs often elicits the God Experience. Among the most potent are LSD, psilocybin, and ibogaine. Those who have studied these entheogens or psychedelics report that their effects cannot be distinguished from the spontaneous God Experience. (The word,"entheogen" means "God created within us.") Church hymns and other feelingful music can facilitate the mystical experience. Body movements which are a part of ritual dancing can also be helpful as can the rhythmic sounds of drumming. Starvation and sensory isolation can be routes to the God Experience. Other factors may "include birth traumas, mechanical damage (concussions) during development, degenerative diseases, hormonal fluctuations, and the development of scleroses." [The quotation above is from Persinger's article, Religious and Mystical Experiences as Artifacts of Temporal Lobe Function: A General Hypothesis, (1983)]. Certain types, after having a mystical experience, become convinced that what they have experienced is real. Persinger refers to this conviction as characteristic of egocentrism. This is because no matter how much evidence is presented to them that the God Experience can be duplicated in a laboratory, they persist in their conviction that what they experienced was real. They are not concerned that others have had similar experiences and came to entirely different theological convictions. They insist that their philosophical position is the correct one and that they really had a visitation from God or a spiritual entity. They are the types who become the founders of new religions and may spend a lifetime codifying what they believe is a new and truthful, divinely inspired philosophical or religious truth. Persinger believes that this type of thinking is not related to intelligence or education. Personal experience becomes for them the "be all" and "end all" of reality as they will reject doctrines that may have been similarly received by others. They always insist that their world-view is the correct one - that their revelations were unique - unlike the God experienced revelations of others - which were not real. Other chapters of the book deal with the semantics of anxiety and anxiety reduction, techniques for integrating religious behaviors and the religious personality In the final chapter, Dr. Persinger writes how the God Experience has potential for both good and evil. He examines the possibility of harnessing the power of the God Experience for the health of mankind. "There have been cases where people walked when told by priests, when lymphomas shrank when the physician gave the trusting person only sugar water. There have been instances where myelin re-eroded when the minister was found to be a charlatan. There are episodes when the cancer that was thought to be cured swelled after the antidote was found to be a sham. The power may be within the individual. But the kindling source resides outside, in the behavior of someone else. The God belief is the greatest parental power of them all. We can isolate and optimize this behavioral operation." "The answer lies within those first four years of hippocampus memory before the transformation to adult thinking. The solution is hidden within the lost images, buried within the mechanisms of adult pre- logic that dominate every human being during the first few years of life. They are the memories for which we now have amnesia. They are the memories from which the God Experience is synthesized during the temporal lobe transients, when portions of the subcortex and the synaptic matrices of infancy are momentarily merged once again. It is here that the key to the immunopotential of human survival is buried." In that chapter he also displays a prescient understanding of how fundamentalist religious extremists could be influenced to commit acts of terrorism. Those who are interested in Persinger's theory of how the God Experience could be technically enhanced and used to further terrorism, can read on the internet, the last portion of his article which deals with this subject: Religious and Mystical Experiences as Artifacts of Temporal Lobe Function: A General Hypothesis Michael A. Persinger is a professor of psychology and head of the Neuroscience Research Group at Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario. His main subject of interest is the study of the effects of applying small amounts of electro-magnetic stimulation to the temporal lobe. Also, on this website, see: Neuro-Electromagnetic Fields, Osama bin Laden, and the Regressive Psychotherapies Parents, The Image of God, and Mysticism: Reflections On Some Writings of Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. On the Origins of the Fear of Dying in the Writings of Michael A. Persinger and Others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 This stuff is absolutely fascinating and amazing. I have used entheogens myself and while I knew the 'God-experiences' that were produced were related to the use of the drug (of course) this didn't seem to invalidate them. Persinger is saying though, that the very nature of these experiences is determined by one's early experience of one's parents and is therefore contingent and analytic; just another product of conditioning. Verrrry interesting! Lots of questions are begged, aren't they? If 'God-experiences' (which are presumably 'non-dual' experiences for those with the appropriate cultural overlay) are really experiences of our (small s) selves, how is it that they seem to pave the way (through practice) for the real experience of the Self that is realization? (a lot of talk in the texts points to 'glimpses' of the Self along the path that stimulate the seeker to continue, don't they?). Is there a type of 'God-experience' that doesn't predispose the experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the experiencer's 'God-view' ? (for the truth is the truth, isn't it, after all?). If 'God-experience' is primarily a biological phemomenon, a property of brains, what does that do to our ideas of virtue, love, grace etc? I'm not surprised the fundamentalists are up in arms (though I would think UGKrishnamurti is quite pleased)!! Thanks for this b, very (electro-magnetically) stimulating. Grant. > ** Original Neuropsychological Bases of God Belief/Persinger > ** Original Sender: "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7 > ** Original 17 Oct 2002 18:18:54 -0000 > ** Original Message follows... > > http://webpages.charter.net/jspeyrer/persing.htm > > Book Review - Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs, Michael A. > Persinger, Ph.D. Praeger Publishers, NY, NY, 1987, $65.00, pps. 164 > > > Reviewed by John A. Speyrer > > "A religious personality is neither good nor bad in itself. > It is no more good or bad than an extrovert, an introvert, a > sensitizer, > or a repressor. It is a consequence of reinforcement history > and the conditions that contribute to temporal lobe sensitivity." > --Dr. Michael A. Persinger > The title of this book brings up the issue of whether it belongs in a > website devoted to the regressive psychotherapies. But it does belong > because both mysticism and the regressive psychotherapies use > material from one's very earliest beginnings as the play dough for > their processes. > I do not believe that the author has sufficiently emphasized the > distinction between and the significance of nurturant memories versus > traumatic memories of infancy and very early childhood. Dr. Persinger > does, however, stress the crucial importance of the infant's > interaction with its parents as the source of material experienced > during the God Experience. > How the mother and father relate to the child is considered of utmost > importance in the production of future God Experiences. Indeed, the > author returns many times to the theme that "infantile memories of > parental images (perhaps even perinatal representations > proprioception), and . . . images from before four to five years of > age," are the building materials from which is formed and which > becomes the bases of such mystical experiences. [The quotation above > is from Persinger's article, Religious and Mystical Experiences as > Artifacts of Temporal Lobe Function: A General Hypothesis, (1983)]. > Michael A. Persinger is a neuro-psychologist who has written about > and researched extensively the effects of electro-magnetic > stimulation of the human brain. In this book, Neuropsychological > Bases of God Beliefs, he has hypothesized that the personal religious > experience with God is a result of electro-magnetic stimulation of > the temporal lobes of the brain caused by micro-seizures, oftentimes > the results of overwhelming physiological stress and anxiety. > He writes in the Preface of the book that these resultant God > Experiences are "tempered by the person's learning history" and > emphasizes that the memories are not stored in the temporal lobe. > That part of the brain only contains the key which unlocks the stored > sensory inputs from other parts of the brain from whence is drawn > long suppressed and repressed memories from one's earliest past. > Throughout the book, which is written from a behavorial viewpoint, he > often reminds us that the ultimate origins of the content of the God > Experience is from the relationship between the infant and its > parents. Unfortunately, we are only tantalized with this bit of > information since he does not go into details about exactly what it > is in the relationship between the parent(s) and the infant which > might determine the content of the God Experience. [see on this > website, Early Life Events and Their Influence On Mysticism In the > Writings of Michael Persinger .] > Dr. Persinger writes that the scientific study of subjects considered > sacred is not a popular undertaking. Over the years many of our most > sacrosanct beliefs have been overturned. The earth is no longer > believed to be the center of the universe and the belief in special > creation has been successfully challenged. The question of mankind's > rationality and whether we possess free will has been a more recent > and upsettling query. He contends that if our beliefs that the God > Experiences come from a God who truly exists, we need not be > concerned, as our beliefs may stand the test of scientific inquiry. > This book delves into the two types of God Belief: The God Experience > and the God Concept. Both the concept of God and the mystical > experience of God are deeply influenced by our early upbringing. Our > concepts of the attributes of God are determined by how we viewed our > parents. As infants we bestowed God-like characteristics on them - I > believe, particularly our mother. She was omnipotent and omniscient. > If she was absent or cruel then these same attributes are ones we > associate with God. This pairing of God equals Mother or God equals > Father is unconscious and colors to a great extent our concept of > God. > The evolution of the brain allowed the temporal lobe to develop > features which enable us to have the God Experience. With its > adjacent organs, the hippocamus and amygdala, the temporal lobe > became the key which when acted upon by our feelings of extreme > personal anxiety allows these parts of the brain to open stored > memories from our earliest existence. These elements are used to > construct the very personal and meaningful episodes of closeness or > oneness with the deity. > As we developed more thinking and reflecting power due to an ever > increasing size of our cortex, we became able to contemplate our own > upcoming death. The temporal lobe with its adjacent structures > allowed us to have spiritual experiences which in turn reduced this > death anxiety. > The medical condition of temporal lobe epilepsy allows us the > convenience of having a living laboratory to study the actions of the > temporal lobe in producing the God Experience. These epileptics > usually have gross abnormalities or lesions of the temporal lobe. The > God Experience can be also be the result of much milder seizures, to > which all of us are, to some degree, susceptible. > Temporal lobe psychotics can have daily episodes of being one with > God. If the psychosis is due to a temporal lobe lesion, its removal > eliminates the God Experiences and mystical preoccupations. > Even in cases of non-psychotics with temporal lobe lesions, but with > grand mal or petit mal seizures, surgery may effectively remove the > seizures but at the same time will also remove their God Experiences. > Transient micro-seizures (with absent gross pathologies) are more > common in the episodic God Experiences of the more normal person. In > all classes of temporal lobe involvement these low-grade seizures can > trigger very meaningful and profound experiences. All feel that they > have been blessed with a personal visit or communication from God. > The God Experience can and does change lives. New understandings > arise and priorities change as new beliefs and behaviors immediately > become accepted. A drug addict can be transformed into a spirit- > filled proselytizing born-again Christian. One's mood becomes > heightened. After having a God Experience, a person may feel that he > has been chosen, inspired and energized by the Almighty to do > important things in His name. > Dr. Persinger writes: "The power of the God Experience shames any > known therapy. With a single burst in the temporal lobe, people find > structure and meaning in seconds. With it comes the personal > conviction of truth and the sense of self-selection." This is what > happened to the evangelist, Billy Graham. > Among the many conditions that promote a God Experience are > physiological stress and nervous tension. "The most profound God > Experiences" Persinger writes, "occur after the sudden loss (death) > of a close loved one." He writes that the profundity of the > experience is in proportion to the degree of the severity of the loss > or of the degree of stress. Seriously disabling accidents and > injuries, privations and financial losses can precipitate a more > deeply moving experience. > Ingesting certain drugs often elicits the God Experience. Among the > most potent are LSD, psilocybin, and ibogaine. Those who have studied > these entheogens or psychedelics report that their effects cannot be > distinguished from the spontaneous God Experience. (The > word,"entheogen" means "God created within us.") > Church hymns and other feelingful music can facilitate the mystical > experience. Body movements which are a part of ritual dancing can > also be helpful as can the rhythmic sounds of drumming. > Starvation and sensory isolation can be routes to the God Experience. > Other factors may "include birth traumas, mechanical damage > (concussions) during development, degenerative diseases, hormonal > fluctuations, and the development of scleroses." [The quotation above > is from Persinger's article, Religious and Mystical Experiences as > Artifacts of Temporal Lobe Function: A General Hypothesis, (1983)]. > Certain types, after having a mystical experience, become convinced > that what they have experienced is real. Persinger refers to this > conviction as characteristic of egocentrism. This is because no > matter how much evidence is presented to them that the God Experience > can be duplicated in a laboratory, they persist in their conviction > that what they experienced was real. They are not concerned that > others have had similar experiences and came to entirely different > theological convictions. They insist that their philosophical > position is the correct one and that they really had a visitation > from God or a spiritual entity. > They are the types who become the founders of new religions and may > spend a lifetime codifying what they believe is a new and truthful, > divinely inspired philosophical or religious truth. Persinger > believes that this type of thinking is not related to intelligence or > education. > Personal experience becomes for them the "be all" and "end all" of > reality as they will reject doctrines that may have been similarly > received by others. They always insist that their world-view is the > correct one - that their revelations were unique - unlike the God > experienced revelations of others - which were not real. > Other chapters of the book deal with the semantics of anxiety and > anxiety reduction, techniques for integrating religious behaviors and > the religious personality > In the final chapter, Dr. Persinger writes how the God Experience has > potential for both good and evil. He examines the possibility of > harnessing the power of the God Experience for the health of mankind. > "There have been cases where people walked when told by priests, when > lymphomas shrank when the physician gave the trusting person only > sugar water. There have been instances where myelin re-eroded when > the minister was found to be a charlatan. There are episodes when the > cancer that was thought to be cured swelled after the antidote was > found to be a sham. The power may be within the individual. But the > kindling source resides outside, in the behavior of someone else. The > God belief is the greatest parental power of them all. We can isolate > and optimize this behavioral operation." > "The answer lies within those first four years of hippocampus memory > before the transformation to adult thinking. The solution is hidden > within the lost images, buried within the mechanisms of adult pre- > logic that dominate every human being during the first few years of > life. They are the memories for which we now have amnesia. They are > the memories from which the God Experience is synthesized during the > temporal lobe transients, when portions of the subcortex and the > synaptic matrices of infancy are momentarily merged once again. It is > here that the key to the immunopotential of human survival is > buried." > > In that chapter he also displays a prescient understanding of how > fundamentalist religious extremists could be influenced to commit > acts of terrorism. > Those who are interested in Persinger's theory of how the God > Experience could be technically enhanced and used to further > terrorism, can read on the internet, the last portion of his article > which deals with this subject: Religious and Mystical Experiences as > Artifacts of Temporal Lobe Function: A General Hypothesis > > Michael A. Persinger is a professor of psychology and head of the > Neuroscience Research Group at Laurentian University, Sudbury, > Ontario. His main subject of interest is the study of the effects of > applying small amounts of electro-magnetic stimulation to the > temporal lobe. > > Also, on this website, see: > Neuro-Electromagnetic Fields, Osama bin Laden, and the Regressive > Psychotherapies > Parents, The Image of God, and Mysticism: Reflections On Some > Writings of Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. > On the Origins of the Fear of Dying in the Writings of Michael A. > Persinger and Others > > > > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > >** --------- End Original Message ----------- ** > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 , bardsley@c... wrote: > If 'God-experiences' (which are presumably 'non-dual' experiences for those with the appropriate cultural overlay) are really experiences of our (small s)selves, how is it that they seem to pave the way (through practice) for the real experience of the Self that is realization? (a lot of talk in the texts points to 'glimpses' of the Self along the path that stimulate the seeker to continue, don't they?). )))) the operative phrase here is "seem to pave the way". >Is there a type of 'God-experience' that doesn't predispose the experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the experiencer's 'God-view' ? (for the truth is the truth, isn't it, after all?). ))) yes, but it is not an experience. >If 'God-experience' is primarily a biological phemomenon, a property of brains, what does that do to our ideas of virtue, love, grace etc? ))) encourage inquiry into belief. >I'm not surprised the fundamentalists are up in arms (though I would think UG Krishnamurti is quite pleased)!! ))) only if he sees himself as other. LoveAlways, b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2002 Report Share Posted October 19, 2002 Hi b > > If 'God-experiences' (which are presumably 'non-dual' experiences > for those with the appropriate cultural overlay) are really > experiences of our (small s)selves, how is it that they seem to pave > the way (through practice) for the real experience of the Self that > is realization? (a lot of talk in the texts points to 'glimpses' of > the Self along the path that stimulate the seeker to continue, don't > they?). > > > )))) the operative phrase here is "seem to pave the way". Yes, I wrote 'seem' here because realization is often spoken/written of not as an experience but as the falling away of the experiencer in order to allow the clarity of what already always is, to be revealed, and therefore 'experience' as such cannot 'pave the way' (as indeed, there is no way and 'truth is a pathless country'). However, 'spiritual experience' does regularly appear to preceed realization and thus from a relative position they would seem to be related (the co-occurence of 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual experience' is notable isn't it?) Many of the realized have had spiritual experience of some kind, yes? The article posits that these experiences are not of 'the spirit' but of the self. Given this, why the apparent regularity? Many of your own posts, b, seem to be feature experiences of mystical love and bliss, what does this research say to those? > >Is there a type of 'God-experience' that doesn't predispose the > experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the > experiencer's 'God-view' ? (for the truth is the truth, isn't it, > after all?). > > > ))) yes, but it is not an experience. Would you elaborate? > >If 'God-experience' is primarily a biological phemomenon, a property > of brains, what does that do to our ideas of virtue, love, grace etc? > > > ))) encourage inquiry into belief. And here? > >I'm not surprised the fundamentalists are up in arms (though I would > think UG Krishnamurti is quite pleased)!! > > > ))) only if he sees himself as other. > Clearly, he doesn't, so I am being less than rigorous in my comment here; UG maintains that 'enlightenment' is a question of biological change, this research would seem to support that view. > LoveAlways, > > b Grant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2002 Report Share Posted October 20, 2002 , bardsley@c... wrote: > Hi b ++++++++++ Hi Grant! > > If 'God-experiences' (which are presumably 'non-dual' experiences > for those with the appropriate cultural overlay) are really > experiences of our (small s)selves, how is it that they seem to pave > the way (through practice) for the real experience of the Self that > is realization? (a lot of talk in the texts points to 'glimpses' of > the Self along the path that stimulate the seeker to continue, don't > they?). > > > )))) the operative phrase here is "seem to pave the way". Yes, I wrote 'seem' here because realization is often spoken/written of not as an experience but as the falling away of the experiencer in order to allow the clarity of what already always is, to be revealed, and therefore 'experience'as such cannot 'pave the way' (as indeed, there is no way and 'truth is a pathless country'). However, 'spiritual experience' does regularly appear to preceed realization and thus from a relative position they would seem to be related (the co-occurence of 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual experience' is notable isn't it?) Many of the realized have had spiritual experience of some kind, yes? The article posits that these experiences are not of 'the spirit' but of the self. Given this, why the apparent regularity? ++++++++++ "Enlightenment has nothing to do with states of consciousness. Whether you are in ego consciousness or unity consciousness is not really the point. I have met many people who have easy access to advanced states of consciousness. Though for some people this may come very easily, I also noticed that many of these people are no freer than anyone else. If you don't believe that the ego can exist in very advanced states of consciousness, think again. The point isn't the state of consciousness, even very advanced ones, but an awake mystery that is the Source of all states of consciousness. It is even the Source of presence and beingness. It is beyond all perception and all experience. I call it "awakeness." To find out that you are empty of emptiness is to die into an aware mystery, which is the Source of all existence. It just so happens that that mystery is in love with all of its manifestation and non- manifestation. You find your Self by stepping back out of yourself." ~ Adyashanti Many of your own posts, b, seem to be feature experiences of mystical love and bliss, what does this research say to those? ++++++++++ perhaps something about an eccentric temporal lobe? :-)) The Beheading of Attar by The Mongolian Invaders The Mongolians never anticipated Rumi would admire the writings of Attar, and later become a best-selling poet himself at the end of the millennium that had barely begun. They were much like us, a bit short-sighted, and prone to hasty judgment. They loved their horses, but didn't stop there. We love our minds, but rarely tame them. What a thrilling ride, but then someone ends up with a sword at the neck, birthing future poets -- no more horse rides, midnight through the desert, suddenly stabbed by that impossible brightness of a full moon, rising in the heart of darkness, a moon one might be willing to give their head for, the very head once raised in praise, mouth opened wide, arms flung sky-ward, singing the name of the Merciful One, the Only One, Allah! Allah! Allah! > >Is there a type of 'God-experience' that doesn't predispose the > experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the > experiencer's 'God-view' ? (for the truth is the truth, isn't it, > after all?). > > > ))) yes, but it is not an experience. Would you elaborate? ++++++++++ experience implies that there be an experiencer in time and space. in apperception, there is no experiencer, no time, no place, no God, no belief, no view. > >If 'God-experience' is primarily a biological phemomenon, a property > of brains, what does that do to our ideas of virtue, love, grace etc? > > > ))) encourage inquiry into belief. And here? ++++ Here, there, and everywhere. When belief is thoroughly investigated, concepts are undermined, and what remains is what has always been, prior to the play of mind and experience. > >I'm not surprised the fundamentalists are up in arms (though I would > think UG Krishnamurti is quite pleased)!! > > > ))) only if he sees himself as other. > Clearly, he doesn't, so I am being less than rigorous in my comment here; UG maintains that 'enlightenment' is a question of biological change, this research would seem to support that view. ++++++++++++++++++ best to do one's own research, then it's not a matter of what Baba Nasrudin or Master Moo Shoo says or not. :-)) LoveAlways, b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2002 Report Share Posted October 20, 2002 Hi again b, Well, I have to say that your post makes me a little crazy/frustrated/irritated, which is clearly a deeply egoic and graceless reaction, so thank you for allowing me to see my tendencies so clearly (which may well be your intention, my thanks not conditional on that of course). Nonetheless my intellect feels itself shortchanged and evaded by your replies and, regardless of the fact that this is my feeling and therefore only peripherally to do with you (the nominal 'you' having merely 'hooked' this feeling of course) I feel to deny the need to reply to your post (and therefore not to do so) would be as lacking in skill as to reply. So I'm replying!! > > > If 'God-experiences' (which are presumably 'non-dual' experiences > > for those with the appropriate cultural overlay) are really > > experiences of our (small s)selves, how is it that they seem to > pave > > the way (through practice) for the real experience of the Self that > > is realization? (a lot of talk in the texts points to 'glimpses' of > > the Self along the path that stimulate the seeker to continue, > don't > > they?). > > > > > > )))) the operative phrase here is "seem to pave the way". > > > Yes, I wrote 'seem' here because realization is often spoken/written > of not as an experience but as the falling away of the experiencer in > order to allow the clarity of what already always is, to be revealed, > and therefore 'experience'as such cannot 'pave the way' (as indeed, > there is no way and 'truth is a pathless country'). > However, 'spiritual experience' does regularly appear to > preceed realization and thus from a relative position they would seem > to be related (the co-occurence of 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual > experience' is notable isn't it?) Many of the realized have had > spiritual experience of some kind, yes? The article posits that these > experiences are not of 'the spirit' but of the self. Given this, why > the apparent regularity? > > > > ++++++++++ "Enlightenment has nothing to do with states of > consciousness. > Whether you are in ego consciousness or unity consciousness is > not really the point. I have met many people who have easy access > to advanced states of consciousness. Though for some people this > may come very easily, I also noticed that many of these people are > no freer than anyone else. If you don't believe that the ego can > exist in very advanced states of consciousness, think again. The > point isn't the state of consciousness, even very advanced ones, but > an awake mystery that is the Source of all states of consciousness. > It is even the Source of presence and beingness. It is beyond all > perception and all experience. I call it "awakeness." To find out > that you are empty of emptiness is to die into an aware mystery, > which is the Source of all existence. It just so happens that that > mystery is in love with all of its manifestation and non- > manifestation. You find your Self by stepping back out of yourself." > > ~ Adyashanti Yes, this echoes the coda/caveat I was making at the start of the paragraph preceding it , ie that 'enlightenment', not being an experience (or any type of thing), is not implied by or created through experience. The question that followed this was, (given the above), why do 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual experience' often seem to go hand in hand, especially in the light of Persing's research (which seems to show that 'spiritual experience' is the result of conditioning and the right type of physical stimulation of the brain rather than the result of anything that might be considered 'spiritual' ie 'grace', 'god', 'shakti' etc). > > Many of your own posts, b, seem to be feature experiences of mystical > love and bliss, what does this research say to those? > > > ++++++++++ perhaps something about an eccentric temporal lobe? :-)) So you would agree with Persing that your 'spiritual experiences' are not/were not 'spiritual' then? Presumably, then, they also had nothing to do with your realisation and are a random co-occurrence (not making claims for you here btw, please correct any misapprehensions and apologies for any that occur). <snip> > > >Is there a type of 'God-experience' that doesn't predispose the > > experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the > > experiencer's 'God-view' ? (for the truth is the truth, isn't it, > > after all?). > > > > > > ))) yes, but it is not an experience. > > Would you elaborate? > > > ++++++++++ experience implies that there be an experiencer in time > and space. in apperception, there is no experiencer, no time, no > place, no God, no belief, no view. Yes, this is the description/'pointing to' of apperception that's often offered, and I don't query it. I'm talking about 'God-experiences' that *are*, incontrovertibly, experiences (ie that don't claim to be or look like realisation/enlightenment, ie the sort of experiences that Persing's talking about). > > >If 'God-experience' is primarily a biological phemomenon, a > property > > of brains, what does that do to our ideas of virtue, love, grace > etc? > > > > > > ))) encourage inquiry into belief. > > And here? > > > ++++ Here, there, and everywhere. > > When belief is thoroughly investigated, concepts are undermined, and > what remains is what has always been, prior to the play of mind and > experience. Yes, if I might say, this is the standard line and I'm not disputing its truth, I am rather attempting to ask questions about what the meaning/ramifications/consequences of Persing's research might be in regard to much that is commonly (and surely, much of it incorrectly) ascribed to/placed within the 'spiritual realm' (love, grace, shakti, etc). What do you think? My questions have been primarily directed towards you as you posted the original material and I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that you would have a view on this, but I'm interested to hear what anyone else thinks of course! > > >I'm not surprised the fundamentalists are up in arms (though I > would > > think UG Krishnamurti is quite pleased)!! > > > > > > ))) only if he sees himself as other. > > > > Clearly, he doesn't, so I am being less than rigorous in my comment > here; UG > maintains that 'enlightenment' is a question of biological change, > this > research would seem to support that view. > > > ++++++++++++++++++ best to do one's own research, then it's not a > matter of what Baba Nasrudin or Master Moo Shoo says or not. :-)) > Yes, indeed, and my own research is always ongoing (though not published!) and it's always that which I consult first, though I think there is value (even if it's only entertainment value) in discussing/analysing/addressing the thoughts and findings of others. I asume you think likewise since you have often quoted other researchers/mystics (viz Adyashanti, though I must have missed Master Moo Shoo and, indeed, posted the articles that began this thread!) There, done, sincere apologies for any pettifoggery or pusillanimity that may have crept into this:) > LoveAlways, > > b Grant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 , bardsley@c... wrote: > Hi again b, > > Well, I have to say that your post makes me a little crazy/frustrated/irritated, which is clearly a deeply egoic and graceless reaction, so thank you for allowing me to see my tendencies so clearly (which may well be your intention, my thanks not conditional on that of course). Nonetheless my intellect feels itself shortchanged and evaded by your replies and, regardless of the fact that this is my feeling and therefore only peripherally to do with you (the nominal 'you' having merely 'hooked' this feeling of course) I feel to deny the need to reply to your post (and therefore not to do so) would be as lacking in skill as to reply. So I'm replying!! Hiya Grant, What an honest and lovely reply! It would have been nice had b given as good of one back to your honest queries. Please do not doubt yourself. You were shortchanged as the replies were evasive. They left me feeling the same. Love, xxxtg > > > > > > If 'God-experiences' (which are presumably 'non-dual' experiences > > > for those with the appropriate cultural overlay) are really > > > experiences of our (small s)selves, how is it that they seem to > > pave > > > the way (through practice) for the real experience of the Self that > > > is realization? (a lot of talk in the texts points to 'glimpses' of > > > the Self along the path that stimulate the seeker to continue, > > don't > > > they?). > > > > > > > > > )))) the operative phrase here is "seem to pave the way". > > > > > > Yes, I wrote 'seem' here because realization is often spoken/written > > of not as an experience but as the falling away of the experiencer in > > order to allow the clarity of what already always is, to be revealed, > > and therefore 'experience'as such cannot 'pave the way' (as indeed, > > there is no way and 'truth is a pathless country'). > > However, 'spiritual experience' does regularly appear to > > preceed realization and thus from a relative position they would seem > > to be related (the co-occurence of 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual > > experience' is notable isn't it?) Many of the realized have had > > spiritual experience of some kind, yes? The article posits that these > > experiences are not of 'the spirit' but of the self. Given this, why > > the apparent regularity? > > > > > > > > ++++++++++ "Enlightenment has nothing to do with states of > > consciousness. > > Whether you are in ego consciousness or unity consciousness is > > not really the point. I have met many people who have easy access > > to advanced states of consciousness. Though for some people this > > may come very easily, I also noticed that many of these people are > > no freer than anyone else. If you don't believe that the ego can > > exist in very advanced states of consciousness, think again. The > > point isn't the state of consciousness, even very advanced ones, but > > an awake mystery that is the Source of all states of consciousness. > > It is even the Source of presence and beingness. It is beyond all > > perception and all experience. I call it "awakeness." To find out > > that you are empty of emptiness is to die into an aware mystery, > > which is the Source of all existence. It just so happens that that > > mystery is in love with all of its manifestation and non- > > manifestation. You find your Self by stepping back out of yourself." > > > > ~ Adyashanti > > Yes, this echoes the coda/caveat I was making at the start of the paragraph preceding it , ie that 'enlightenment', not being an experience (or any type of thing), is not implied by or created through experience. The question that followed this was, (given the above), why do 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual experience' often seem to go hand in hand, especially in the light of Persing's research (which seems to show that 'spiritual experience' is the result of conditioning and the right type of physical stimulation of the brain rather than the result of anything that might be considered 'spiritual' ie 'grace', 'god', 'shakti' etc). > > > > > Many of your own posts, b, seem to be feature experiences of mystical > > love and bliss, what does this research say to those? > > > > > > ++++++++++ perhaps something about an eccentric temporal lobe? :- )) > > So you would agree with Persing that your 'spiritual experiences' are not/were not 'spiritual' then? Presumably, then, they also had nothing to do with your realisation and are a random co-occurrence (not making claims for you here btw, please correct any misapprehensions and apologies for any that occur). > > <snip> > > > > >Is there a type of 'God-experience' that doesn't predispose the > > > experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the > > > experiencer's 'God-view' ? (for the truth is the truth, isn't it, > > > after all?). > > > > > > > > > ))) yes, but it is not an experience. > > > > Would you elaborate? > > > > > > ++++++++++ experience implies that there be an experiencer in time > > and space. in apperception, there is no experiencer, no time, no > > place, no God, no belief, no view. > > Yes, this is the description/'pointing to' of apperception that's often offered, and I don't query it. I'm talking about 'God- experiences' that *are*, incontrovertibly, experiences (ie that don't claim to be or look like realisation/enlightenment, ie the sort of experiences that Persing's talking about). > > > > >If 'God-experience' is primarily a biological phemomenon, a > > property > > > of brains, what does that do to our ideas of virtue, love, grace > > etc? > > > > > > > > > ))) encourage inquiry into belief. > > > > And here? > > > > > > ++++ Here, there, and everywhere. > > > > When belief is thoroughly investigated, concepts are undermined, and > > what remains is what has always been, prior to the play of mind and > > experience. > > Yes, if I might say, this is the standard line and I'm not disputing its truth, I am rather attempting to ask questions about what the meaning/ramifications/consequences of Persing's research might be in regard to much that is commonly (and surely, much of it incorrectly) ascribed to/placed within the 'spiritual realm' (love, grace, shakti, etc). What do you think? My questions have been primarily directed towards you as you posted the original material and I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that you would have a view on this, but I'm interested to hear what anyone else thinks of course! > > > > >I'm not surprised the fundamentalists are up in arms (though I > > would > > > think UG Krishnamurti is quite pleased)!! > > > > > > > > > ))) only if he sees himself as other. > > > > > > > Clearly, he doesn't, so I am being less than rigorous in my comment > > here; UG > > maintains that 'enlightenment' is a question of biological change, > > this > > research would seem to support that view. > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++ best to do one's own research, then it's not a > > matter of what Baba Nasrudin or Master Moo Shoo says or not. :-)) > > > > Yes, indeed, and my own research is always ongoing (though not published!) and it's always that which I consult first, though I think there is value (even if it's only entertainment value) in discussing/analysing/addressing the thoughts and findings of others. I asume you think likewise since you have often quoted other researchers/mystics (viz Adyashanti, though I must have missed Master Moo Shoo and, indeed, posted the articles that began this thread!) There, done, sincere apologies for any pettifoggery or pusillanimity that may have crept into this:) > > > LoveAlways, > > > > b > > Grant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 , "teegee555" <Teegee555@a...> wrote: > , bardsley@c... wrote: > > Hi again b, > > > > Well, I have to say that your post makes me a little > crazy/frustrated/irritated, which is clearly a deeply egoic and > graceless reaction, so thank you for allowing me to see my tendencies > so clearly (which may well be your intention, my thanks not > conditional on that of course). Nonetheless my intellect feels itself > shortchanged and evaded by your replies and, regardless of the fact > that this is my feeling and therefore only peripherally to do with > you (the nominal 'you' having merely 'hooked' this feeling of course) > I feel to deny the need to reply to your post (and therefore not to > do so) would be as lacking in skill as to reply. So I'm replying!! > > > Hiya Grant, > > What an honest and lovely reply! It would have been nice had b given > as good of one back to your honest queries. Please do not doubt > yourself. You were shortchanged as the replies were evasive. They > left me feeling the same. > > Love, > xxxtg ***************************** You guys are beautiful. TG, I love your clear expression. I am a sucker for straight forward honesty and sincerity! :-) :-). I wanna say....ask me any questions....ask me anything ....ask me anything at all... I really loved that quote about having a thousand hearts so one can give one away every moment. What would happen if we had a thousand hearts and gave all of them away and only one was left and then someone showed up and wanted that as well? :-) :-). When the last heart is given, that is surrender, and the Heart Reveals It Self. Sri Ramana used to say, that there are two general methods. Either one inquires carefully or one surrenders totally to the Lord. When one surrenders completely, the desire to understand the mystery is also given up......one can always say more...but there is no end to it. :-). Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 , bardsley@c... wrote: > Hi again b, ######### Namaste, Grant! >Well, I have to say that your post makes me a little crazy/frustrated/irritated, which is clearly a deeply egoic and graceless reaction, so thank you for allowing me to see my tendencies so clearly (which may well be your intention, my thanks not conditional on that of course). Nonetheless my intellect feels itself shortchanged and evaded by your replies and, regardless of the fact that this is my feeling and therefore only peripherally to do with you (the nominal 'you' having merely 'hooked' this feeling of course) I feel to deny the need to reply to your post (and therefore not to do so) would be as lacking in skill as to reply. So I'm replying!! ######## Oh, i apologize for any obscurity or seeming evasion. You see, i have found less & less any lingering movement in myself towards discursiveness, replaced increasingly by the urge to only praise. explanations sort of drop away in the recognition of the mystery of unknowing, and so perhaps the intellect has climbed into the backseat, occasionally offering simple advice like "stop on red, go on green". > > > If 'God-experiences' (which are presumably 'non-dual' experiences > > for those with the appropriate cultural overlay) are really > > experiences of our (small s)selves, how is it that they seem to > pave > > the way (through practice) for the real experience of the Self that > > is realization? (a lot of talk in the texts points to 'glimpses' of > > the Self along the path that stimulate the seeker to continue, > don't > > they?). > > > > > > )))) the operative phrase here is "seem to pave the way". > > > Yes, I wrote 'seem' here because realization is often spoken/written > of not as an experience but as the falling away of the experiencer in > order to allow the clarity of what already always is, to be revealed, > and therefore 'experience'as such cannot 'pave the way' (as indeed, > there is no way and 'truth is a pathless country'). > However, 'spiritual experience' does regularly appear to > preceed realization and thus from a relative position they would seem > to be related (the co-occurence of 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual > experience' is notable isn't it?) Many of the realized have had > spiritual experience of some kind, yes? The article posits that these > experiences are not of 'the spirit' but of the self. Given this, why > the apparent regularity? > > > > ++++++++++ "Enlightenment has nothing to do with states of > consciousness. > Whether you are in ego consciousness or unity consciousness is > not really the point. I have met many people who have easy access > to advanced states of consciousness. Though for some people this > may come very easily, I also noticed that many of these people are > no freer than anyone else. If you don't believe that the ego can > exist in very advanced states of consciousness, think again. The > point isn't the state of consciousness, even very advanced ones, but > an awake mystery that is the Source of all states of consciousness. > It is even the Source of presence and beingness. It is beyond all > perception and all experience. I call it "awakeness." To find out > that you are empty of emptiness is to die into an aware mystery, > which is the Source of all existence. It just so happens that that > mystery is in love with all of its manifestation and non- > manifestation. You find your Self by stepping back out of yourself." > > ~ Adyashanti Yes, this echoes the coda/caveat I was making at the start of the paragraph preceding it , ie that 'enlightenment', not being an experience (or any type of thing), is not implied by or created through experience. The question that followed this was, (given the above), why do 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual experience' often seem to go hand in hand, especially in the light of Persing's research (which seems to show that 'spiritual experience' is the result of conditioning and the right type of physical stimulation of the brain rather than the result of anything that might be considered 'spiritual' ie 'grace', 'god', 'shakti' etc). #### well, this could go round in circles, since it could be suggested that "grace", etc. is behind the conditioning, physical stimulation, etc.. a starving man doesn't ponder which grocery store the offered meal comes from. > > Many of your own posts, b, seem to be feature experiences of mystical > love and bliss, what does this research say to those? > > > ++++++++++ perhaps something about an eccentric temporal lobe? :-)) So you would agree with Persing that your 'spiritual experiences' are not/were not 'spiritual' then? Presumably, then, they also had nothing to do with your realisation and are a random co-occurrence (not making claims for you here btw, please correct any misapprehensions and apologies for any that occur). #### honestly, i don't have a clue. whatever speculation i may have entertained before about any of this now sits in the recycle bin, waiting final delete. <snip> > > >Is there a type of 'God-experience' that doesn't predispose the > > experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the > > experiencer's 'God-view' ? (for the truth is the truth, isn't it, > > after all?). > > > > > > ))) yes, but it is not an experience. > > Would you elaborate? > > > ++++++++++ experience implies that there be an experiencer in time > and space. in apperception, there is no experiencer, no time, no > place, no God, no belief, no view. Yes, this is the description/'pointing to' of apperception that's often offered, and I don't query it. I'm talking about 'God-experiences' that *are*, incontrovertibly, experiences (ie that don't claim to be or look like realisation/enlightenment, ie the sort of experiences that Persing's talking about). ### i have previously studied many so-called God-experiences in the mystical literature, etc. as well as in dialogues with others, prompted by a curiosity to explore certain similarities in my own life, and there certainly are a variety of religious experiences, just as each person is unique. the ones that seem most genuine do not " predispose the experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the experiencer's 'God-view'", but rather annihilate any prior belief. for example, i am recalling Thomas Aquinas' experience in the chapel later in his life, of which he remarked that what he had been shown in that one timeless moment obliterated all he had previously known or imagined or speculated on about the Divine. my own "experience" was of such a nature, and so there is resonance with this kind of testimony. > > >If 'God-experience' is primarily a biological phemomenon, a > property > > of brains, what does that do to our ideas of virtue, love, grace > etc? > > > > > > ))) encourage inquiry into belief. > > And here? > > > ++++ Here, there, and everywhere. > > When belief is thoroughly investigated, concepts are undermined, and > what remains is what has always been, prior to the play of mind and > experience. Yes, if I might say, this is the standard line and I'm not disputing its truth, I am rather attempting to ask questions about what the meaning/ramifications/consequences of Persing's research might be in regard to much that is commonly (and surely, much of it incorrectly) ascribed to/placed within the 'spiritual realm' (love, grace, shakti, etc). What do you think? ### we still have much to learn, but even more perhaps to unlearn. i posted the article in order to share some interesting research, and to stimulate discussion about an area that has been shrouded in belief, superstition, and confusion. your own inquiry is praise- worthy -- hell, this whole damn universe is so incredibly praise- worthy! what a wonder that we are appearing here at all! mind sputters and falls down on its knees at the immensity of This in which it arises and dissolves! LoveAlways, b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 Hi b, Upon consultation my slighted intellect declares its honour restored and thanks yours for putting in an appearance from the back seat:) Grant. > ** Original Re: Neuropsychological Bases of God Belief/Persinger > ** Original Sender: "hrtbeat7" <hrtbeat7 > ** Original 21 Oct 2002 15:41:28 -0000 > ** Original Message follows... > > , bardsley@c... wrote: > > > Hi again b, > > > ######### Namaste, Grant! > > > >Well, I have to say that your post makes me a little > crazy/frustrated/irritated, which is clearly a deeply egoic and > graceless > reaction, so thank you for allowing me to see my tendencies so > clearly (which > may well be your intention, my thanks not conditional on that of > course). > Nonetheless my intellect feels itself shortchanged and evaded by your > replies > and, regardless of the fact that this is my feeling and therefore only > peripherally to do with you (the nominal 'you' having merely 'hooked' > this > feeling of course) I feel to deny the need to reply to your post (and > therefore > not to do so) would be as lacking in skill as to reply. So I'm > replying!! > > > ######## Oh, i apologize for any obscurity or seeming evasion. You > see, i have found less & less any lingering movement in myself > towards discursiveness, replaced increasingly by the urge to only > praise. explanations sort of drop away in the recognition of the > mystery of unknowing, and so perhaps the intellect has climbed into > the backseat, occasionally offering simple advice like "stop on red, > go on green". > > > > > > If 'God-experiences' (which are presumably 'non-dual' > experiences > > > for those with the appropriate cultural overlay) are really > > > experiences of our (small s)selves, how is it that they seem to > > pave > > > the way (through practice) for the real experience of the Self > that > > > is realization? (a lot of talk in the texts points to 'glimpses' > of > > > the Self along the path that stimulate the seeker to continue, > > don't > > > they?). > > > > > > > > > )))) the operative phrase here is "seem to pave the way". > > > > > > Yes, I wrote 'seem' here because realization is often > spoken/written > > of not as an experience but as the falling away of the experiencer > in > > order to allow the clarity of what already always is, to be > revealed, > > and therefore 'experience'as such cannot 'pave the way' (as indeed, > > there is no way and 'truth is a pathless country'). > > However, 'spiritual experience' does regularly appear to > > preceed realization and thus from a relative position they would > seem > > to be related (the co-occurence of 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual > > experience' is notable isn't it?) Many of the realized have had > > spiritual experience of some kind, yes? The article posits that > these > > experiences are not of 'the spirit' but of the self. Given this, > why > > the apparent regularity? > > > > > > > > ++++++++++ "Enlightenment has nothing to do with states of > > consciousness. > > Whether you are in ego consciousness or unity consciousness is > > not really the point. I have met many people who have easy access > > to advanced states of consciousness. Though for some people this > > may come very easily, I also noticed that many of these people are > > no freer than anyone else. If you don't believe that the ego can > > exist in very advanced states of consciousness, think again. The > > point isn't the state of consciousness, even very advanced ones, > but > > an awake mystery that is the Source of all states of consciousness. > > It is even the Source of presence and beingness. It is beyond all > > perception and all experience. I call it "awakeness." To find out > > that you are empty of emptiness is to die into an aware mystery, > > which is the Source of all existence. It just so happens that that > > mystery is in love with all of its manifestation and non- > > manifestation. You find your Self by stepping back out of yourself." > > > > ~ Adyashanti > > Yes, this echoes the coda/caveat I was making at the start of the > paragraph > preceding it , ie that 'enlightenment', not being an experience (or > any type of > thing), is not implied by or created through experience. The question > that > followed this was, (given the above), why do 'enlightenment' > and 'spiritual > experience' often seem to go hand in hand, especially in the light of > Persing's > research (which seems to show that 'spiritual experience' is the > result of > conditioning and the right type of physical stimulation of the brain > rather > than the result of anything that might be considered 'spiritual' > ie 'grace', > 'god', 'shakti' etc). > > > > #### well, this could go round in circles, since it could be > suggested that "grace", etc. is behind the conditioning, physical > stimulation, etc.. > a starving man doesn't ponder which grocery store the offered meal > comes from. > > > > > > Many of your own posts, b, seem to be feature experiences of > mystical > > love and bliss, what does this research say to those? > > > > > > ++++++++++ perhaps something about an eccentric temporal lobe? :-)) > > So you would agree with Persing that your 'spiritual experiences' are > not/were > not 'spiritual' then? Presumably, then, they also had nothing to do > with your > realisation and are a random co-occurrence (not making claims for you > here btw, > please correct any misapprehensions and apologies for any that occur). > > > #### honestly, i don't have a clue. whatever speculation i may have > entertained before about any of this now sits in the recycle bin, > waiting final delete. > > > > <snip> > > > > >Is there a type of 'God-experience' that doesn't predispose the > > > experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in the > > > experiencer's 'God-view' ? (for the truth is the truth, isn't it, > > > after all?). > > > > > > > > > ))) yes, but it is not an experience. > > > > Would you elaborate? > > > > > > ++++++++++ experience implies that there be an experiencer in time > > and space. in apperception, there is no experiencer, no time, no > > place, no God, no belief, no view. > > Yes, this is the description/'pointing to' of apperception that's > often > offered, and I don't query it. I'm talking about 'God-experiences' > that *are*, > incontrovertibly, experiences (ie that don't claim to be or look like > realisation/enlightenment, ie the sort of experiences that Persing's > talking > about). > > > ### i have previously studied many so-called God-experiences in the > mystical literature, etc. as well as in dialogues with others, > prompted by a curiosity to explore certain similarities in my own > life, and there certainly are a variety of religious experiences, > just as each person is unique. the ones that seem most genuine do > not " predispose the experiencer to a categorical/exclusive belief in > the experiencer's 'God-view'", but rather annihilate any prior > belief. for example, i am recalling Thomas Aquinas' experience in the > chapel later in his life, of which he remarked that what he had been > shown in that one timeless moment obliterated all he had previously > known or imagined or speculated on about the Divine. > my own "experience" was of such a nature, and so there is resonance > with this kind of testimony. > > > > > > > >If 'God-experience' is primarily a biological phemomenon, a > > property > > > of brains, what does that do to our ideas of virtue, love, grace > > etc? > > > > > > > > > ))) encourage inquiry into belief. > > > > And here? > > > > > > ++++ Here, there, and everywhere. > > > > When belief is thoroughly investigated, concepts are undermined, > and > > what remains is what has always been, prior to the play of mind and > > experience. > > Yes, if I might say, this is the standard line and I'm not disputing > its truth, > I am rather attempting to ask questions about what the > meaning/ramifications/consequences of Persing's research might be in > regard to > much that is commonly (and surely, much of it incorrectly) ascribed > to/placed > within the 'spiritual realm' (love, grace, shakti, etc). What do you > think? > > ### we still have much to learn, but even more perhaps to unlearn. i > posted the article in order to share some interesting research, and > to stimulate discussion about an area that has been shrouded in > belief, superstition, and confusion. your own inquiry is praise- > worthy -- hell, this whole damn universe is so incredibly praise- > worthy! what a wonder that we are appearing here at all! mind > sputters and falls down on its knees at the immensity of This in > which it arises and dissolves! > > > > LoveAlways, > > b > > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > >** --------- End Original Message ----------- ** > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.