(If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard this post,
but it is a subject I do care about and have devoted some thought to, so FWIW I
am throwing my two cents' worth in.)
IMO and IME, Unity as MZ has described it is *not* Reality, not "Brahman" --
not even true Unity, insofar as he has described identifying with a separate
self or Self which was invested in demonstrating it was better, smarter,
clearer than everyone else -- *what* everyone else? Where is the true Unity in
that? In Unity, at least we understand that we and our object of perception are
One. There is no other, as far as the immediate object of perception is
concerned.
However, in so-called Unity there is or may still be a subtly separate self who
thinks it has reached the pinnacle of evolution, thinks it is enlightened
("unlike most others"), but this is *not* Reality. This is an intellect lost in
its own creation, its own beliefs. Reality is not really attainable by a
separate Self; Reality only quickens to ItSelf and remembers ItSelf when we
Awaken from our intellect's dream of separation and comparison and competition
to remember we are *not* that separate Self, not the Witness, not pure
consciousness, not "in" Ignorance or C.C. or G.C. or U.C. or "in" any thing,
and never have been.
We are the indescribable, the ungraspable. We are literally beyond belief.
Beyond ideas. Beyond stories. And yet we contain and embrace and enjoy all
beliefs, ideas and stories, for entertainment purposes only. We are the devatas
and the rakshasas; we are the divine and the demonic. What is there to fear?
Fear is born of duality, of projecting one's power or shadows outside oneself,
and there is only Us here.
Personal enlightenment or ignorance or any specific state of consciousness or
quality of being is not really applicable; those are descriptions of a separate
self, and meaningful only to a separate self, stuck in an intellect's illusion
of separation, comparison, spacetime and evolution. Not that there is anything
whatsoever wrong with that! As we said earlier, "it's all fun and games until
someone loses an I."
The point is, when Reality slaps or tickles itself Awake, and we cease
primarily identifying with our I, we may begin to see we are no more and no
less enlightened than every one of us who is in Us, and that is every one in
creation. As others see themselves and see Us, that is indeed how we are ... in
them and for them, in Us.
And in Reality, we may gleefully investigate and throw ourselves into any
particular state(s) of consciousness we please. In fact, from one POV we are
continually cycling between ignorance and enlightenment, as we love our
I-points from "ignorance" -- when we are unconsciously lost in them and
identified with them -- into "enlightenment", when they are consciously aligned
with and identified with Us.
But again, that's just a game we play, to pass the time :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "at_man_and_brahman"
<at_man_and_brahman@...> wrote:
>
> My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's a
> new thought.
>
> Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness,
> which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has "fallen." If
> that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps his later
> intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality set up a
> fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can accidentally, if
> you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking state, then would it
> be impossible for a person in unity to *intentionally* deconstruct unity and
> reestablish, artificially, waking state? If so, such an event could be
> predicated on an intellectual mistake, which surely could befall even those
> in unity.
>
> Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do
> hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.
> That should be interesting.
>
> He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.
>
