> > Tom T:
> > Like I said above we may be on different pages of the akashic
> records. There is no small self here,
>
> Akasha:
> A CC experience
Rory: Yes and no -- as I see it anyhow, when one is in C.C., one
would not be particularly aware of the Ahamkara, even though it
filters and mediates between the experience of Purusha (Absolute)
and Prakriti (Relative). It would be the one still "claiming" the
experience; one's own sense of individuality or soul. In C.C. and
G.C. and even in U.C., this one is still there. It thinks it is
having "experiences" of C.C., G.C., and U.C.
Only in B.C. does one actually notice this Ahamkara intensely -- by
its sudden absence. Only then do we see that it was indeed a small
self; before that we thought it was the Absolute. Only in B.C. do we
actually "get" that it actually had limitations, when we are
suddenly confronted with ourselves as the Great Immensity, not other
than the relative "out there." This is the first time EVERYTHING is
utterly the same: ground state; THAT; no small self distinguishing
between Absolute and Relative.
Unfortunately if one still functions through the small self, one is
going to interpret everything a B.C. experiencer says in terms of
the states one actually knows: Sleep, Dream, Waking, C.C., G.C., and
U.C. You have noted that Tom appears to you to be sliding around
between C.C. and U.C. To use my conic-sections model, one could
hypothesize that this is because you may still be interpreting his 3-
D cone with a 2-D lens. If you take EVERYTHING he says as
descriptions of the same state, rather than saying, "this sounds
like C.C.; this sounds maybe like U.C.," you will be getting closer
to what he is getting at. B.C. is "slippery;" it is the field of
paradox; it is bigger than you are. It contains all the component
states simultaneously. You never really "get" it; it "gets" you.
*lol*
> > Tom T:
> there is no inner wakefulness.
>
> Akasha:
> A CC experience, depending on semantics. There is no spatial
boundary
> to wakefulness in CC.
Rory:
B.C. -- describing its peculiar "ignorance"/U.C. aspects.
> Tom T:
> > It is all out there. Every where I look it is me. It is all
subject.
> > Object shows up only when attention is paid.
>
> Akasha:
> Others may best comment on this. To me it appears to fit UC, not
BC.
> And depending on semantics, could be an expression of experience
in CC
Rory:
Most certainly not any C.C. I am familiar with. This is again B.C.
described through the U.C. plane. Any time you try to describe the
indescribable, you're only getting a piece of the picture. Take them
all together, simultaneously, or throw them all out, and bingo!
Bob's your Uncle.
> Tom T:
> If this is all me who the hell is left to
> > witness, observe or take note. I am it all, experiencing myself
as
> > experience.
>
> Akasha:
> The above seems to contrast with your prior statement, and a
number of
> similar statements in recent posts " What happens in the relative
is
> of, for and by the relative." If IT is all you, then there is no
> relative.
Rory:
Actually, not true. It IS all Tom, and it IS all Absolute, and it IS
all Relative, and NONE of the above. Simultaneously. See? B.C. Who
encompasses all the various experiences?
Akasha:
Given your strong dualistic statments in other places, the
> statement immediately above " If this is all me who the hell is
left
> to > witness, observe or take note. I am it all, experiencing
myself
> as experience" could be seen as a dualistic observation of CC.
Rory:
"If this is all me" should be a give-away that Tom is not describing
C.C. Again, taking this statement with all the other seemingly
contradictory (strongly dualistic) statements simultaneously (or
throwing them all out) will do the trick. That way you will "get"
Tom-Brahman -- or actually He will "get" you. :-)
LLL,
Rory
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
