On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Larry wrote:
>
> > As I have heard, UC is recognition of Self in another object
> > (person/place/thing) . . . as UC matures, recognition becomes more
> > frequent and the 'scope' of the object expands . . . till entire
> > universe can be appreciated as Self.
>
> This is how Shankara describes in his nondual stages, from the POV
of
> Unity:
>
> pratyahara : seeing the 'self' in objects of senses and thereby
> submerging the mind (manas) into consciousness (chiti), dharana
> wherever the mind goes, seeing Brahman there and holding the mind
> therein,
>
> dhyana : 'I am the very Brahman by such vrtti remaining without any
> object of concentration (niralambana), grantor of supreme joy,
>
> samadhi : becoming free of all transmutations (nirvikAra),
> maintaining the vrtti of being identical with Brahman, then
forgetting
> the very vrtti.
>
> Needless to say, this is quite different from how Patanjali sees
things!
>
> > However - in BC the fullness of
> > 'inside' and 'outside' collide and that inside/outside or
> > subject/object distinction becomes only a matter of practicality.
> > Also, in BC the Self is gone because there is no sense of anything
> > that is non Self, no inside/outside, no subject/object. Like CC,
UC
> > feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live.
> > However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something
really big
> > happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are
no
> > longer a human being - and That does not feel natural.
>
> There is a sense that one becomes the center of ones own mandala and
> all items in the field of awareness are unified elements that have a
> relation to your "energetic" manifestation of universal chiti.
>
> At the level of unity, thought takes on a very different role.
When I
> hear someone making a claim of Unity, one of the things I'll listen
> for is how they integrate thought from their nondual POV.
>
> The analogy one of my Bonpo masters gave was it's like watching fish
> move within water.
>
More like water within water. Different currents have a different
character, but its all water.
They are actually using it to describe a certain type of integration,
and the description does follow the "experience", as it has to do not
only with integration of the movement of thoughts (as opposed to
silence) but other phenomenon as well.
