Skeptics, fetal nirvana & more...

[M Suresh]

Ian Goddard wrote :

> Skeptics of nonduality, as are most "Western" thinkers, will not buy
> this because they can observe that just because reality appeared to be
> one unified Self with white light, or whatever features like "bliss"
> one might add, does not mean this was/is true. The experience is a
> naturally albeit rarely arising hallucination caused by neurological
> phenomena. Some kind of brain seizure that is all in your head.

  Of course such a claim can not be disproved. But neither can it be
  proved. Because it just studies the effects ( Brain activity or some
  such thing I suppose ). In principle it would not be very different if
  a person manages to make himself grow 3 feet taller in a day, scientists
  measure his height, see that some tissues have been stretched and claim to
  have solved the problem. However since the story in our case is much longer
  follwing it carefully definitely does have a hypnotic effect.

  Swami Vivekananda himself had asked his Guru Ramakrishna Paramahamsa such
  a question. So the idea is not something new.

  However as Ramanamaharishi has said it is the experiencer that is important
  and not the experience, which is a thing of the past. Jiddu Krishnamurthy
  says that experience is a second hand imprint of the past and it should be
  got rid of as if it is a burden, what one should look for is a living
  truth unconstrained by the concept of past, which pertains to time.

> There is a popular theory of a very well know psychologist -- Stanislov
> Groff, who has studied the religious experience for many years in many
> people the world over -- that claims the experience of "oceanic bliss"
> white light and the expansion of self-boundaries unto infinity is a
> remanifestation of the fetal experience in the womb. As Lao Tzu said
> (going on memory here) "returning to the mother of all things."

  From the little I have read about this I have reason to beleive that
  the state in the womb has both happiness and sluggishness ( Tamas ).
  It is a scientific fact that all babies smile in their wombs. I think
  the happiness will be because the soul gets a chance to fully express
  its latencies in the world it is going to arrive in. It need not be
  bliss, it might be similiar to the happiness one might experience on
  becoming a millionaire overnight ( This is my own guess and not supported
  by anybodys writing or fact ).

  However many spiritualists/saints do not refer to this as a very pleasant
  state. Shankara in Bhaja Govindam says "Punarapi Janani Jathare Shayanam"
  ( Sleeping in the mothers womb again ). Paramahamsa Yogananda has said
  that the period in the womb was one of helplessness ( In Autobiography of
  a Yogi ).

> The argumentation and evidence for this conclusion is very strong and
> sobering, it is based upon hundreds of case studies. Based upon one of
> my enlightenment experiences, I think it is largely true, but at the same
> time is not an invalidation of the white light "I am all" experience because
> indeed the fetus is on the border of the knowledge of the clear light and
> the appearance of the universe of duality. It follows that by returning
> to the first moments of the existence of the brain/mind one could be
> able to see the state prior to physical "embodiment" and thus come
> face to face with one's true nature.

  If the effects of something has been studied, I do not see in what way
  one can conclude about the source. As it is very little is known about
  the actual functioning of the brain, except finding out areas associated
  with some functions. Nothing is known about the mysterious WILL of which
  the brain seems to be but an instrument, and which distunguishes us from
  machines.

  One can seriously doubt how an objective study can conclude firmly
  about a subjective experience. I might study something about the baby
  in the womb, but I just cannot be the baby. I might for example find out
  how dolphins find out about their environment through ultrasonics but
  I just cannot imagine how world will be to them, since sound is the most
  important presenter of information for them, rather than sight.

  Recently in SRH someone gave info that a person produced the brain waves
  of deep sleep when he was actually awake.

  So in these cases I definitely would prefer to accept the opinion of the
  saints about the womb state since they can in some way know the experience,
  themselves rather that rely on external phenomena which are results of
  the experience.

> Secular humanist skeptics see Dr. Groff's work as proof that enlightenment
> is all in your head, but I see it as a confirmation that it is seeing
> outside the mind by returning you to the primary conception of the mind
> before it covered over the white light field with illusions. The fact
> that Dr. Groff's work does not explain is why would a fetus see white
> light? The womb is dark. There is the hole through which the truth
> in this matter shines.

  Science will generally look for some signs/miracles that violate its laws
  for confirmation of the supernatural. There have been cases studied of
  withdrawal of life, wilful changing of brainwaves, remote vision etc. for
  such kind of proof. However the violation may be only of the present
 scientific
  knowledge and in future may come under the purview of science. So the
  existence of god/supernatural cannot be proved/disproved by science and
  there is no point in connecting the two.

-Suresh.