Doc, I think we're saying the same thing, simply using different language. I agree that the Me Self of CC and the Me Self of GC are the same, infinite, absolute, fullness of fullness NON CHANGING. But in CC the relative is seen as separate and different, ever changing. Actually Maharishi calls the relative a mass of death, because of its ever changing quality. It is not until the finest relative joins the Me Self in infinitude that UC is realized.
________________________________ From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" <doctordumb...@rocketmail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How the deluded see the world.... I am sorry, but this is incorrect, Share. The movement from CC to GC is one of perceiving the finest relative. This gives the mind the entire spectrum of perceived reality to consider, but is not the movement from UC, onward. Both the "me" of CC, and the "me" of GC are the same. There can also be finest perception in GC and not a shred of UC. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > iranitea, I would say that this is a description of the movement from CC to > GC where fullness of fullness, the Absolute moves into the fullness of > emptiness, the relative. The Self in CC has recognized that there is > something else and the heartfelt inquiry into what that something else is, > fuels the ability to overcome the fear of that emptiness. Of course under the > influence of a soma laden physiology, especially the heart, that emptiness > turns out to be the fullness of emptiness so not separate at all. > > > And would it not be wonderful if these concepts were not merely allegorical > but also quite literal, mean physical. > > > ________________________________ > From: iranitea <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 6:13 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How the deluded see the world.... > > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Robin could have been in Unity consciousness, where similarity > > predominates, over differences. But that SOC is still relative to one's > > singular identity. The identity must shift to a less localized state to > > grow beyond the Unity SOC. The core fear of duality is still present in the > > Unity SOC, although the perception that this duality is an illusion begins > > to take hold, due to the incontrovertible oneness that the heart and > > intellect begin to sense, outwardly. > > > Dr.D this is an interesting POV, what you say makes sense (even though, I > don't know what is really the case here). But it does remind me of a series > of tapes - probably the spiritual development course - where he speaks of the > fullness of fullness, and the fullness of emptiness (both he calls > 'fullness'). Obviously emptiness is synonymous of duality here. (I don't > think he means the emptiness of the Buddhists). > > He then goes on to describe, that the fullness, obviously Unity, despite of > the fact that it is everywhere, senses, that there is a place where it is > not,at least the possibility of such a place, emptiness, and he speaks of > Fullness moving because of the fear it has of emptiness - Fullness is on the > move - was the phrase he used. I always thought, this is highly > allegorically, fullness on the move would be a synonym for Shakti, but may be > it is borne out of an experience, just like the one you describe. >
