--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
>>
>> On May 9, 2012, at 4:23 PM, sparaig wrote:
>>
>>> Falsehood?
>>>
>>> There are two ways you can appreciate "consciousness is primary, matter is
>>> secondary":
>>>
>>> !) allegedly, someone in Unity Consciousness perceives this directly as a
>>> result of how their brain operates.
>>>
>>> I have no personal experience with that for more than a second or so (once
>>> just after meditating, I opened my eyes and couldn't see any thing. Just
>>> the usual silent me-ness that I associate with having my eyes closed just
>>> after meditating. Then I realized that I SHOULD be seeing something because
>>> my eyes were open and I realized that I had been seeing "things" all along,
>>> just not processing the input. I assume that Unity is sorta like that but
>>> you remain a functional human).
>>
>> You see, for me, that would be an utterly worthless experience, as I'd
>> immediately want to know that which this unity consciousness (or 'pure'
>> consciousness for that matter) arises from. Irregardless of what
>> conventional or non-conventional experience you have, that cannot change the
>> fact that consciousness does not exist, as far as we know, outside of a
>> brain and nervous system, etc.
>>
>> And one can even have a sense of being beyond the body from that brain, but
>> that most certainly would not mean that some consciousness exists as
>> something 'beyond the brain'. It could just mean you have a deluded
>> construct that you believe is this 'mysterious object' (pure consciousness).
>
> Of course. As I point out in a subsequent post. Even if one can float around
> a room, and that ability is predicated upon being in Unity Consciousness, one
> still can't assert (in the Western philosophical sense) that one is "one with
> the universe."
>>>
>>> 2) you can arrive at an intellectual understanding that everything MUST be
>>> consciousness.
>>>
>>> John Hagelin's simple realization that any and all interactions of things,
>>> whether people or electrons or even more elementary particles, can be
>>> described using the rishi-devata-chhandas concept. Once you grasp this
>>> point, then it is obvious that everything is conscious. Consciousness is
>>> primary, matter is secondary, because the rishi-devata-chhandas description
>>> applies to every single possible level of existence, period, whereas
>>> material things change. All existence is consciousness because that is what
>>> consciousness is: existence.
>>
>> You see, this is a perfect example how Mahesh used the naivete of his
>> students to create delusional thinking in them. Thanks for demonstrating
>> Lawson. When you actually learn mantra in an authentic tradition, you'd know
>> exactly what rishi, devata and chhandas meant, and prayoga, mudra, yantra
>> etc.
>>
>> It's always a major clue that something might be wrong with your guru when
>> he tells you 'not to read other texts or it might confuse you.' Just sayin'.
>
> Rishi, devata and chhandas have different shades of meaning, depending on
> context. Allegedly, all these different shades merge into one, but I agree
> that "rishi, deity and meter" is not an immediately obvious mapping of
> "knower, process of knowing, and known."
>
> There are people other than MMY and his students who attempt to explain this
> mapping.
>
> L.
Regular language is often rather vague. What is the difference between
'consciousness' and 'pure consciousness'. If consciousness is something real
what does adding the word 'pure' as a modifier signify or mean. Does 'Being'
equal 'consciousness' or is there a difference? What is the difference between
a piece of gravel and a human being with regard to the use of the word
'consciousness'.
Frogs and spiders have been levitated using magnetic fields. What part of this
system is parallel to unity consciousness? Why is levitation considered to be a
'requirement' for unity consciousness? No other tradition I have heard of has
such a requirement for enlightenment. Maharishi said Krisnamurtu was in unity,
but Krishnamurti never levitated. So what was the criterion MMY used to
determine that obersevation?
There is the phrase 'one with the universe' and there is the phrase 'the
universe is one'. These have different implications. In unity there is
wholeness, the universe, that is, all experience, is one, but you are not one
with it, because the 'you' is a fiction. When the fiction is seen through, the
oneness is experienced, but there is no 'you' to experience it, there is just
experience, i.e., consciousness, but no description really can delineate what
it is like, so the word consciousness ultimately fails as does any other
description. You are not one with the universe, the universe is one,
non-duality. Call it what you will, but what you call it will only result in
confusion if you use that to try to prove something.
Rishi, Devata, Chhandas, I would say, is the mechanism by which fiction of
individuality is maintained, by which the appearance of separate things in the
universe seem to be. Why does anyone have to know this? Remember in the
Bhagavad-Gita it says that to an enlightened man, the Vedas are like a well
surrounded by water on all sides.
How can one be in unity if there is the perception that consciousness and
matter are different? If they are, you have duality. Non-duality is a funny
word. Some use 'monism' (the universe is a single 'substance'), which tends to
conjure up an image of monotonous uniformity, while non-duality suggests
variegation without essential division. The end of the line cannot be
described. As Elmer Fudd used to say 'It's the end of the wine, Tall Dark
Stwanger. I have a warrant for your awwest!' And 'self' ('you'), is taken out
of circulation.
