On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:27 PM, akasha_108 wrote: >> Really all that can be said is that >> this is the POV of Mahesh Yogi (this CC opinion)--because it >> certainly does not represent any lineal transmission. > > > I am not sure I see your point. It seems to me that MMY has stated > that there are multiple applicable and useful POVs, depending on what > domain you are functioning. Like Newtonian physics is still used and > is very practical when dealing with every day things even though one > knows it is an incorrect POV when dealing with quite macro and micro > things -- galaxies and sub-atomic particles.
Yeah you're right, he has talked of the 3 higher states and 3 corresponding darshanas--I just do not find his take on CC very accurate. This might be a Shankarian bias. Shankara felt he was right and the Samkhya dudes were flawed...and maybe that's the bias I'm getting from M. I feel they're all right--for the right person. The Samkhya-style realization could be the whole thing for the right person--not "oh I have two more states to go through or it's not "full realization"". > > >> Most hilarious is the whole >> idea that there is a transition from CC to GC to UC. > > > Discrete transition may be a simplification but experientially it > seems that there is a stage when Awareness IS. My experience is that > at a later point, Awareness is "discriminated" and found alive within > perception, thinking and deciding. Its not a stretch that it would be > natural for the projection of Awareness, remaining unadulterated by > the overlays of sensual stimulation, might be found, and has > occasisionally been found, also in "things". But this is not yet a > common realization. > > However, this gives rise to the "sense" of unfoldment: Awareness IS > (WAS) --> Awareness (IS-ING) --> Awareness (ALL). Though this "sense" > is false in that Awareness is not changing. It is simply the > discrimination of Awareness as Alive in broader domains that changes. > While experientially I find humor / hilarity in this whole process, I > am not sure we are laughing at the same thing. I am simply saying I don't necessarily experience a natural progression of TC -> CC -> GC -> UC...and really either does the tradition. That's reassuring for me. I know some paths introduce unity right away--you grab what you can and let it burn through to the base (of reality). Anything less is a prop of some sort. > > >> GC or >> Bhagavata-chetana is the style of enlightenment described by the >> Bhagavatins. The Bhagavatins were Vaishnavite Bhaktis--devotional >> practitioners from the cult of Vishnu! This is why when you study and >> practice from the perspective of the Shankaracharya trad. you will NOT >> find "GC" as part of any continuum of enlightenment. > > > Yes, GC-- refined perception -- seemes to be something "outside" the > realization of Awareness: Being, Doing and then BEING(ALL). Perhaps > refined perception could be termed a "coincident possible attribute" of My point is its an entirely different trip altogether. Hare Krishnas doing bhakti is closer to this trip than anything TM or TMSP. > >> What these represent are different POV's--different darshanas. > > Yes. > >> Advaita does show a path beyond turiyatita to videha-mukti (UC) but > it ain't anything like M. claims. > > > Can you elaborate? The process is described very differently. The process entails methods that simply aren't there. Yeah there's 'more than one way to skin a cat' but will not enable something I really feel can't get you there. > > >> The idea of 7 states of consciousness is a fabrication of M.'s >> opinions. "Seven" may have been a more marketable concept than "six", >> but the idea that these 7 states represent a continuum is a novelty > of Mahesh. > > > I view M. as trying to make that which had been seen as obscure > concepts and POVs as more understandable. Sorting out key points and > focussing just on that. Sort of like the role of analogies. While the > 7-states is not literally an analogy, it is a simply story that give > some understanding. The "trick" is not to stay living in the "analogy" > / simplified model understanding of things, but seek a more refined > fuller understanding. Yeah I can see that. I just don't buy it as a sequence or even necessarily the way it is described. The tools just aren't there to get that job done. Or even to set up the stage. > > >>> On a more serious note, do you singularly define CC as "Cessation of >>> identification of consciousness with mind. End of 'I' and 'me'"? Do >>> you feel "No I" is both nexcessary and sufficient to label the >>> experience "CC"? Without relying on dogmatic kneejerks, it does seems >>> there are additional "attributes" along with or beyond the experience >>> of "No I". > > > >> Actually turiyatita or CC is said to occur with the complete >> DISSOLUTION of mind. Merely ceasing to identify with the mind would >> give a glimpse of "CC" perhaps, not the end result. > > > The cessation of identification of ANYTHING makes sense > experientially. Identification implies duality and requires an X and > Y: X identifies with or is equivalent to Y. In this case you would have no choice. Once the illusion of mind is gone, there's no rug to stand on. This is a monumental thing though...it's not this effortless thing. Maybe being in Samadhi for hours or days at a time is--but to get to that level is not easy for most of us. The rare few who did much of the work in previous lives can get it right away, but that is oh so rare. > > However, I don't understand your "no mind". You are not suggesting > Permanent Vegetative State -- no brain. The subjective experience may > be no "my mind". And no "monkey-mind" -- that is, the constant > chatter, judgements, memories, passions of the mind are gone. But > there is still a mind -- part of the "apparatus" that functions. I'm talking about the dissolution of the manamayakosha. > > But to clarify what you mean by "no mind", what are "the methods to > perform this dissolution [of the "mind"]? Seedless absorbtions are an important one but even before that obliterating samskaras and dissolving the kleshas. 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/
