I skim over 95 percent of Fairfield Life content, but I always pause to read Peter's explanations of why there's no self in cosmic consciousness, despite having read many of them in the past. Funny how I'm always willing to read another one.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@...> wrote: > > You keep on making this conceptual argument which does make sense from a > waking state context. But if you have clear CC experiences it becomes quite > clear there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. This is > only a neo-advaita trap when people try to argue there is no self in waking > state. Of course there is a self in waking state. There just isn't one in CC. > So what happens to this relative self in CC? The answer is nothing. It > becomes clear that the sense of relative self was a delusion. This is why the > rope and snake metaphor is so powerful. You could argue that the snake exists > as a concept or belief. But this would be like saying from waking state that > your dream of a tiger was real. Only in the dream is the tiger real. Once you > shift into waking state, the tiger is no longer real in this new context. The > same thing happens to the sense of individuality in CC. It's not there. > There's only consciousness which has no relative > measure. > > Non-localization is not a conceptual argument that can be understood in > waking state. It sounds absurd, of course. Imagine trying to tell your dream > ego that there is no tiger as it experiences the tiger chasing it! But it is > a conceptual tool that helps you in CC. > > By the way, I completely agree with you that neo-advaita is nonsense, but not > for the same reasons you argue. Neo-advaita is nonsense because it offers no > tools to facilitate realization and it takes concepts that make plenty of > sense in Realization, but make no sense in waking state. >
