> > Akasha: > > > > Pure consciousness begins from the first mediation. If not > > > > before. > > > > Uuc: > > > Before. There has never been a moment in my life when > > > I was not enlightened.
A: > > That's the one point on all of this where I think we differ. Again, I see no value in labels such as "enlightenment". But it appears to me your reporting is what you did below, "when the 24/7 witnessing made it impossible not to appreciate. Since then, that witnessing has slipped from foreground to background many times" Terming that as "E", to me, goes beyond reportiing. its labeling. And since it differs from what many understand that term to be, it simply promotes miscommunication. U: > > > I just never appreciated it > > > until a three-week period in Fiuggi, when the 24/7 wit- > > > nessing made it impossible not to appreciate. Since > > > then, that witnessing has slipped from foreground to > > > background many times, but what I realized during the > > > 'appreciation' discussion is that it has always been > > > present. What I realized when I first appreciated it > > > was that it had *always* been present. > > > > A: > > yes, all that is good. And similar. But if one wanted to play the > > labels game, it would seem that when the attention of Awareness (of awareness) slips from foreground to background, its not E. But I think E labels are bogus, so who cares. Claim all you want. :) U: > No claims, merely reporting. And having fun. A: Well, fun is good. This discussion is fun and not a challenge. And resonable people can view the same things differently. But labels (above) is different from a "term" which can facilite communication. Some don't appear to distinguish between labels and terms, which seems unfortunate. The term E is a rolled up abstraction. A symbol for some experience. When all share the same understanding of the symbol, it can facilitate communication. When people make up their own definitions, which is fine IMO, but without clearly demarcing how such differs from common usage, the symbol loses its value, it becomes counter productive. So while I agree with Tom, in a later post, that some commonly agreed upon terminology is good. Which is my whole whole point here. And, agreeing with Tom, its nice to have a concise term and not a 50 word discriptor and 50 word disclaiamer. It just seem that using a symbol, particularly ones with heavy baggage and multiple and different connotations to many people, is not productive. "E" is such, and I find "Awake" hs become such. And as Unc points out, if the symbol has an opposite, has most do. Both are counter productive, IMO. Thus I favor just saying what is, instead of relying on unreliable intermediary symbols. For example, "constant foreground PC" expresses a specific "state", is relatively concise (could be shortened to CFPC), and is immediately distinguishable from Variable Foreground PC or Oscillating Foreground PC. And is clearly distinguishable from Unity Brahman states where All is "experienced / understood" as CFPC, "That Brahman is the same as THIS Atman". I have no issue, if its relevant to a discussion for someone to say "CFPC is there". No label or title, just concise terminology. Much clearer and cleaner than "I am E" > > U: > > > And when you lighten up about it, you can bring it from > > > background to foreground any time you want. It's just > > > the neatest thing. > > > > A: > > YES. And it is always accessable. It is bitchin. Still, in that > > stage, I would hold that is not E. If I was playing the label game. U: > I no longer make that distinction. A: Thats fine, but it implies that you hold that any initial experience of PC is E. Which is in a way true. "you are a knower of reality". But since for some then E means PC, for some CC and others BC. Its then not a particularly precise term. And it has label baggage. U: > a few fairly foolproof methods of bringing it from back- > ground to foreground anytime I want. A: I think VAj's "non-meditation" , relates to this. U: > The thing is, I > rarely want to. As someone -- perhaps you -- said in > these discussions, there is no difference. The "wanting" > there to be one feels false, A: I don't experience "want" in making that transition. Though I understand how a "logical proof" could indicate it must be there. Its just its not there in my experience. > > U: > > > The thing that brought it from background to foreground > > > most recently was, strangely enough, watching an old > > > movie on DVD. .... A: But I hope too you have recognized mush simpler and instantaneous methods. U: > The map is not the territory. I think what's going > on here is that Judy is more attached to being able > to say, "Ah...finally...I have the map," than in > actually getting to the place it points to. A: I think its way easier and productive to talk about oneself than to try to diagnose what one percieves to be anohter's problems and issues. Doing such is an indication of projection going on, often unbeknownst to the "projector". U: > And > the last couple of days that's been striking me as > just hilarious, side-splittingly funny. A: I have found them to be sincere and intelligent discussions. Go figure. A: > > Experience and Understanding are > > real. And both are spectral - extending along a long/wide > > spectrum. U: > I would say that experience was far more "real" than > understanding. A: I am deferring to the Tom / Rory view that BC is an understanding, not an experience. U: > The more experiences I have of higher > states of attention, the less I understand. And the > happier I am. Go figure. A: Ironically, increasing levels of "I don't know" cac co-exist with increased levels of insight. Its not a zero sum game, in my experience. A: > > But for scientific measurement purposes, which may have > > some value, I would "label" E as continual foreground of > > PC. All thes other "states" stages we have talked about > > are nice developments. U: > If what one wanted to do was measure such a thing > "scientifically," that sounds like a good definition. > If what one wanted was a happy life, ... Let me recast that. I was fumbling with the above. I think labels have no value. I think clear terms can facilitate discussion. Thus something like "CFPC" is a useful term if duscussion is undertaken. The label "E" has novalue IMO. U: I'd say it was > pretty darned unproductive, because you couldd be > setting up for yourself the same kind of self-imposed > misery Judy's wallowing in. A: First I don't buy into your premise regarding Judy. (Why the constant "jabbing". You can make the same point just as well in the abstract) But per your point, I agree if one seeks E, which is a major reason why I think the label is quite unproductive. And you have not read all the archives I presume, but this has been a long discussion in the past. Three years ago or so, I deeply and sincerely abandoned any seeking for E. I abondoned the label. (though I searched for appopriated terms for sakes of discussion). I decided, came to understand that, everything I need is right here now. And I would focus just on that. The Non Seeking, the abondement of "Tomorrow" was useful for me. It may or may not be useful for all. I got a lot of blank stares and yawning at the time. > If your definition of > enlightenment revolve s around the foreground apprec- > iation of PC being present, there would be a kind of > subconscious discontent (or "wanting") associated with > the periods in which it was not in the foreground. Logically yes. Experiencially no. And since it is accessable at any time, how can there be longing -- if such arose? > That "wanting," by definition, is a lack of appreciation > for Here And Now, a lack of appreciation for the enlight- > enment that IS present. The wanting would be if it was there. You presume something false. > I think it's better just to drop the whole definition > thang entirely, and just be enlightened, however it > manifests itself. In my terms, I would agree, and "do" the above, with the change of E to PC. > > Thats why I think "E" has been highly devalued in these neo- > > advaita years. Its drawing a target around the already shot > > arrow. "I am here, so this must be the goal." I am old skewl > > perhaps. I think there are actual classic "standards" that few > > I am aware of have met. > > That may be. But who is it that still "wants" them? Read above. The devaluation issue is about clear terminology for discussion, not labeling of self or others, or future states. Janis Joplin said it best: "You all are waiting for tomorrow. But hey man, we all know that train never comes" > > But many poo poo and label such as inaccurate, out of date, > > and/or stemming from a "bad translation". > > Or just irrelevant to having a happy and meaningful life. I agree. One does not need scripture for a happy life. Though I find it helpful in clarifying experience. But thats me. But I sense that the strong reaction against scrptural descriptions is that it challenges proclaimed stances and ingrained positions. For example, I noted some posters at times exhibit a lot of flaring up anger, yet proclaim E. I listed a number verses from the Gita (v1-18), and there are over 30, as i remember, distinct points disassociating anger from E. And the same sanskrit term, which direclty refers to anger, is used in each instance. But still there was pretty strong reaction "this cant be so" The reasons given seemed weak. The hypothesis that such felt "this must be wrong because anger is cleaarly there in my life yet I amenlightened. Thus either krishna is wrong, or the translators are wrong." seemed to better explain the reaction. > > All are having fine experiences. That does not make them E. > > But if it gets someone off, or satifies some ego need, they > > should go for it. > > > > I am happy with my experiences. I am not denying anything. > > Except devaluation and BS. > > Whatever floats your boat. :-) Especially in a class 5 hurricane. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
