--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
Fine. I've already told you that the only reason I was using the E word was because it was already in play in the thread. I don't think that way. Call it enkughtenment if you like. :-) > 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... Why on EARTH would anyone want to do that? :-) > ...it would seem that when the attention of Awareness > (of awareness) slips from foreground to background, its not E. Enlightenment or enkughtenment? You have to be specific if you want to play the label game. :-) > 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. If more people realized that, more discussions would be more fun. :-) > 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. What makes you believe that they all share the same *experience*, and thus can agree on a symbol for it? > 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. Again, you seem to be assuming that everyone who realizes enlightenment is experiencing the same thing. I make no such assumption. > So while I agree with Tom, in a later post, that some commonly > agreed upon terminology is good. Only if you feel that you are of necessity discussing the exact same experience. > Which is my whole whole point here. Thanks. I had wondered. :-) > And, agreeing with Tom, its nice to have a concise term and not a > 50 word discriptor and 50 word disclaiamer. I've already proposed enkughtenment. It works very well on the other forum. :-) > 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. Koan of the day: what is the antonym of enkughtenment? > 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". Whatever floats your boat. In my view, all of these distinctions imply a belief in a somewhat linear pro- gression and a hierarchy of "higher" or "fuller" experiences of enkughtenment. Boring. Enkughtenment is its own reward, and attempts to bag what "level" of enkughtenment one has attained tend to be rewarded with enpieinfacement. :-) > 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" Whatever floats your boat. > > > 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. The entire *problem*, as I see it, is with the desire to be precise about something that is off the map. :-) > 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. And does it matter? > > > 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. Strangely enough, even for someone as Tantric as myself, none of my methods for bringing this awareness from back- ground to foreground has ever involved the use of mush. :-) > 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. And lighthearted on one side and deadly, don't-you-dare- not-take-me-seriously on the other. > 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. I don't give a shit about BC or CC or UC or GC or WhamBamThankYouMa'amC. I don't think in terms of Maharishi's seven states or definitions of them *at all* these days. If I'm reduced to such silly labels to have conversations here, I put up with it, but that doesn't mean that I believe the labels are in any way accurate. Enkughtenment is better because there is no end point to enkughtenment, and no dis- cernible points along the Way that one could achieve. It's an endless continuum, identifiable primarily by the sound of laughter. > 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" can 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. None whatsoever. > I think clear terms can facilitate discussion. But what does the discussion facilitate? > 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". Honestly? Because sometimes when she gets frustrated enough in these discussions, she actually drops the act for a while and has a neat moment or two. It's like the S&M approach to liberation. :-) > 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. And, obviously, a fruitless one, other than as a nice way to pass the time and have fun. :-) > Three years ago or so, I deeply and sincerely abandoned any seeking > for E. I abondoned the label. (though I searched for appopriate > 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. Yes, but could they walk and chew gum at the same 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? Ask Judy. She's the one who's longing to be less overshadowed. Not my issue. > > 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. Ever seen those bumper stickers that start, "I'd rather be ... ?" The ... doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it indicates a dissatisfaction with Now. One of the qualities I associate with enkughtenment, at least in my case, is satisfaction with Now. > > 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. Just be PC? You'd fit in very well in Boston. Very PC place...Politically Correct run amock. > > > 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. I'm just having fun here, man, poking fun at the idea that there could EVER be "clear communication" about enkughtenment. > Janis Joplin said it best: "You all are waiting for tomorrow. > But hey man, we all know that train never comes" And yet some people just wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and actually seem to want to be stroked for waiting. > > > 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. I was speaking of the "standards" for "E", but I'd list scripture as pretty irrelevant as well. > But I sense that the strong reaction against scrptural > descriptions is that it challenges proclaimed stances and > ingrained positions. I just think that scripture is just another way of attempting to define the undefinable, that's all. > 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 you assume that the Gita is correct? I don't. > 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. How about, "Who CARES what the Gita says?" :-) I don't react to the content of scripture -- anyone's scripture, including all Buddhist texts considered scripture -- as either right or wrong. I consider them all interesting fiction, in the sense that not ONE of them can be proven to have anything whatsoever to do with what might have been said by the historical teachers to which the words have been attributed. For me, scripture is entertainment, read in the same state of mind that I would bring to reading a good Norse myth, or a great Bardic tale, or even a good movie. The value of the scripture does not depend on its "rightness," merely on my ability to find something of value in it. Thus it doesn't matter to me whether the Gita was written by some enlightened sage or by some hack trying to earn a few quick rupees by dash- ing off a fictional tale of trying to make sense of war. The only thing that matters is whether I can find some resonance with the material. If I can't find that resonance with an "official" scripture, and I can with an old horror movie, then the horror movie has been of more use to me... ------------------------ 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/
