--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > It's all true, the only problem is, NOBODY HAS EVER EXPERIENCED IT! The > > Devil is in the details, are we to believe that we actually transcend THAT > > (or the GC level) to the pure absolute transcendent and still can't > > recollect all of the supernal bliss MMY describes? Unlikely!, it takes > > TIME, many, many years and lifetimes of dedication to achieve this highest > > state of human evolution. > > > > MMY liked to put lipstick on a pig when it came to this subject (time), he > > didn't want to discourage anybody and yet, TM is still eminently useful. > > > > At least Charlie Lutes didn't beat around the bush, he said it would take > > more likely around 7 lifetimes. > > > > Believe me, if you haven't experienced supernal bliss during TM, YOU > > HAVEN'T TRANSCENDED! How can you expect to experience direct pure > > consciousness (UC, or Brahman) without FIRST experiencing GC? (or even the > > experience of CC?). It's absurd, the bubble diagram has always been taken > > way out of context, it's merely a teaching tool, nobody transcends to pure > > consciousness in a few months or years of TM, you may have glimpses (tip > > toeing through the sleeping elephants), that is all, sorry. > > > > MMY was great at hyperbole! > > > What I find interesting about this is MMY described GC as being seen in a > different way depending on what the background system a person believed in. > He said something like for a Christian, it would be seemed in terms of > Christ, for a Hindu, maybe Krisha, and Buddha for a Buddhist. He did not say > what non believers would experience. Has anybody else heard this? I find it > intriguing that Zen Buddhists do not describe such a state at all, but some > describe CC and UC in their own way, but all but UC is considered an aspect > of the delusion of ignorance.
I recall MMY said that one's beliefs determined the the types of visions and gods one saw at death (Christians would meet Jesus, HIndus' their favorite gods, and nonbelievers would see a blazing light). I never heard him apply the same concept to GC, but it does make sense. Perhaps the type of meditation system that a person uses would influence the GC experience- so if you used a specific mantra that mantra would call up certain images or encounters. I am assuming that these gods come from within our own awareness, not from outside somewhere. > > MMY also discussed Krishnamurti saying Krishnamurti was 'too far gone in > Unity', (which was why he did not seem to know how he got there). I heard MMY say Krishnamurti had gotten to CC, and had been born practically in CC. As a result, he had no clue as to how to help others go thru that process. But didn't Krishnamurti himself, alter in life, disavow the whole idea that he was enlightened? XA:Yet Krishnamurti never talked of these other states as far as I know. Supposing a scientist studying evolution all his/her life were to come into GC, what would be experienced? Would such a person, not believing in any religion, experience GC in terms of Darwinian Evolution? > > Also the Indian writings do not necessarily discuss lifetimes in terms of > death of the body and then digging up another one later on. Rebirth happens > constantly whenever you see any form. Hundreds of times a day. > > Certain experiences in meditation can be very blissful, and also can > experiences when out of meditation. You have to take what Charlie said with a > grain of salt - he was such fun, but he was into a lot of flaky spiritual > ideas, and maybe that was his GC! > > Also if it's true (as you said in the beginning) but nobody has ever > experienced it, how could anyone know it is true? If MMY discusses states of > experience but you are not experiencing these states, or have not in the > past, while you can believe what he says is true, you cannot know what he > says is true. In this state we do not know. > > If transcendence is boundless and without qualities, then it really cannot be > blissful - you can call it bliss, but it is a specialised definition of > bliss. I think MMY said *contact* is blissful while the actual state itself > does not have any definition. > > I presume you are making a distinction between the words 'pure direct > consciousness' in unity versus pure consciousness as TC. What does this mean? > Is TC some kind of 'non-direct' experience of pure consciousness while unity > is direct? If unity is the fusion of pure consciousness and the relative > values of experience, how could you tell them apart? If TC were water, and > the world a sponge, and the water soaked into the sponge, it would not quite > the same as a glass of water and a dry sponge. Unification may have an > experiential quality that one could never anticipate. An analogy: if you take > a metal, Na (sodium -a bright silvery metal) and a gas, Cl (chlorine - a > poisonous yellow-green gas) and combine them, you get - salt, a clear > translucent crystal. > > For some reason, I think MMY was being kind of coy in describing these > things. The bubble diagram is, as you say, a teaching tool, but it is > designed for the person who has no idea about any of this stuff to begin > with. The bubble diagram only refers to TC not UC. It is tempting to flip it > so it points in the opposite direction, but would that really mean anything > or even represent the case of whatever transcendence might mean in the > approach to unity? > > And with regard to time I recall Charlie saying 'Maharishi forgot to add the > zeros.' He did not say how many zeros. >
