What about the statement by Maharishi that: 'Evolution never ends, it goes on for ever and ever'.
Brahman consciousness itself is said to just be the pinnacle of individual evolution, there is nothing more he can do for himself. For the man in Brahman to evolve he then must become the tool for society to evolve, the teacher, then he can continue to grow. Now when you get a few people in Brahman together then things must get really interesting! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > i am still trying to figure out why on earth i would want a rainbow > body...color me clueless about that- lol. > > seriously, to say there are states of evolution beyond enlightenment > again presupposes enlightenment as something finite. it isn't. even > the rainbow body phenomenon if it exists could be said to be a > progression of continuing enlightenment, the final attainment of > which doesn't exist, because enlightenment in its fully ripened form > encompasses -everything-, relative and absolute. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <yifuxero@> > wrote: > > > > ---great!...and there are stages of evolution beyond > Enlightenment; > > to begin with, some form of physical perfection then evolving > toward > > the attainment of a Glorified body. Of course, such evolutionary > > developments are "relative", but nevertheless possibly where > humanity > > is headed. > > Neo-Advaitins typically downplay such progressions. Vaj called > the > > attainment of a Glorified Rainbow Light Body an "epiphenomenon". > > Of course, all of this is speculative anyway; but the notion that > > Enlightenment is some type of "pinnacle" seems counterintuitive. A > > phase-transition would probably be a more appropriate phrase. > > But even then, everything has to be placed into the context of > what > > people want, what makes them happy, and where they believe lies > the > > source of happiness. > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > in order to attempt an understanding of enlightenment, the > waking > > > state mind conceptualizes enlightenment as an object, with > > > conventional attributes and boundaries. but enlightenment is > > > unbounded by its very definition, without attributes and > > boundaries. > > > > > > so when the identification of the mind itself changes from bound > to > > > an entity that constantly grows and expands, and continues to > > > expand, that is the change of the mind that occurs with > > > enlightenment. anything the waking state mind attempts to latch > > > onto, and think, "yes, THAT is enlightenment" will necessarily > be > > > incorrect. > > > > > > enlightenment is a process, beginning with a fundamental change > in > > > identification, from self to Self. that is why there are three > > > distinct stages of enlightenment in the TM lexiccn, and many > many > > > more stages beyond that. to think incorrectly of waking state > > > morphing into another bound atate, the state of enlightenment, > is a > > > mental trick with no value. > > > > > > the first establishment of enlightenment, CC, is just the > > beginning, > > > and neither that, nor any other state of enlightenment that > ripens > > > subsequently, can be conceptualized by the waking state mind. > > > > > > conceptualization needs at least two values, both fixed. so if a > > > person from waking state, a fixed value, attempts to > conceptualize > > a > > > second, elightened state, which is not fixed but ever expanding, > > > there is no way to compare the two, no way to bridge the > apparent > > > distance between the fixed and the not fixed, by thinking. it is > > > like trying to mathematically compute all of the numbers between > > one > > > and infinity. impossible. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <inmadison@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <drpetersutphen@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me jump into this attachment discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is > > > until you > > > > > > experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. > Any > > > attempt to > > > > > > become unattached through the mind is pure mood- > > > making/manipulation > > > > > > which is worthless. Most people disengage/unattach from > > > aspects of > > > > > > their relative existence out of neurotic fear, not out of > a > > > desire for > > > > > > realization. They want to free themselves from the > discomfort > > > of the > > > > > > mind's attachment so they disengage. But this is a > mistake. > > > Even in > > > > > > enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when dealing > > with > > > > > > relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is > > pure > > > > > > conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to > > > realization > > > > > > pure consciousness identifies with something other than > itself > > > > > > (primarily the mind, secondarily the body) and an ego is > > > created. So > > > > > > pure awareness experiences itself as limited. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why would PC, which is eternally free and unbounded, > the > > > substratum > > > > > > of the gods, the Being of the universe, experience itself > as > > > limited? > > > > > > Exactly when did this delusion of Pure Consciousness begin? > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately, this is a question for the philosophers of the > > > group - but > > > > > experientially, this is what Maharishi referred to as the > > > > > 'naturalness' of waking state, or the 'naturalness' of CC or > the > > > > > 'naturalness' of any state of consciousness - - it is > > > accompanied by a > > > > > sense of This is how I have always lived, or This is what it > > > means to > > > > > be a human being, etc Completely natural means there is > not > > a > > > sense > > > > > of: I used to be or experience such and such, but now I > > > experience or > > > > > am such and such. It is completely seamless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > > > I understand that some may say things such as "pure > consciousness > > > > identifies with something other than itself and pure awareness > > > > experiences itself as limited" in a poetic sense, and/or as > from > > > the > > > > perspective of the (illusion of an) ego in order to paint a > > picture > > > > for an ego-driven waking state perspective. > > > > > > > > However to state, and to hold that literally, that Pure > > > Consciousness > > > > morphs into a limited state, and gets confused and identifies > > with > > > the > > > > mind or objects of the senses indicates that this type of "Pure > > > > Consciousness" is a very weak -- and unworthy, bound state of > > > > consciousness, IMO. The experience of this very weak sibling > of > > > ever > > > > constant unchanging actual Pure Consciousness -- even when > this > > > weak > > > > sibling "gets strong" and not so confused -- appears a trivial > > > > attainment. > > > > > > > > > >
