see comments below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > meli > > > > Irmeli wrote in response to Peter: > > <<Clearly it is futile to discuss these issues with you. With my waking > > state reality I just cannot comprehend you.>> > > > > **** > > Such a shame - you each have so much to contribute. BTW, there may be > > a problem with the term "waking state" here. Irmeli appears to be > > using it to mean the state that the body/mind is in when it arises > > from sleep and goes about the activities of the day. Peter appears to > > be using it to mean the state that the body/mind is in before a > > certain level of realization in the field of universal consciousness. > > After this, the body/mind still arises from sleep and goes about the > > activities of the day. > > > > anonX > > > > I understand enlightenment to be a prevalent waking state awareness. > It depends on how we define enlightenment, what attributes this > enlightened awareness has. This has been my conceptual basic > assumption. I have stated this in many posts earlier. > Peter seems to be talking about something else. He has explained > waking state and enlightenment to be two different things I have > earlier asked him how he on daily basis manages to alternate between > waking state and enlightenment? But I have got no answer. > Also many times earlier when I have commented on his "no I" posts he > has not bothered to respond to me. > > I have had very easy to relate to Ken Wilber's thinking and > descriptions and conceptual way of expressing himself from the very > first moment I encountered his writings a few years ago. I mean I can > in his descriptions recognize my own subjective reality, but not in > Peter's descriptions. > > I just read from the newest issue of "What is Enlightenment" from the > Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen Dialogue a very good description that > pretty well describes my own conscious inner reality. > > Quote: > "Wilber: Moment to moment there is this ever-present is-ness, and yet > as soon as you locate yourself in it, there is an `I'. > Cohen: Yes. The minute you locate yourself, the whole world appears. > Wilber: Exactly. As soon as there is an `I', there is an it or an > object, and then there is a `we'; there is some resonance with some > other subjectivity someplace". > > Wilber explains also a little bit further in the text: "When you are > in a causal, or nondual, open-eyes, ever-present, non-effort state, an > I arises that is an authentic self." > > I hope this helps to clarify, what I have been trying to communicate. > > Irmeli
**** Thank you Irmeli for your response. I have read a number of posts from you since you first joined FFL. However, I go through long periods of not reading FFL, so I am sure that I have missed many of your contributions. On the topic of "waking state" I think it is worthwhile to understand that Peter uses that as a kind of jargon, or shorthand for "pre-enlightened state". I suggest that, when reading what he has to say, you make the substitution. Then you will not confuse your understanding of "waking state" (which is the more common usage) with his (which is Maharishi's usage). If you follow this suggestion, you will have a new interpretation of the conversations you have with him. For example, you wrote: <<He has explained > waking state and enlightenment to be two different things I have > earlier asked him how he on daily basis manages to alternate between waking state and enlightenment?>> His part of this would translate as: "He has explained that the pre-enlightened state and enlightenment are two different things." Then you would see that your question which followed isn't actually addressing what he had to say. Once getting past the confusion of terminology, it starts to get interesting to see the similarities and differences in how each of you define "enlightenment". Regarding the "no I" concept, if you have an interest to understand it better, there are some very articulate attempts to describe this experience, coming from people who had no predisposition to expect it, based on their own traditions. These have been mentioned before on FFL: Collision With the Infinite, by Suzanne Siegal The Experience of No-Self, by Bernadette Roberts In the latter, there a thorough attempt to define what is meant by self. Such a definition is often missing from discussions of no- self, no-ego etc. Other writings by Bernadette Roberts go into this more thoroughly, such as the book "What is Self?". I mention this because you seem to have a curious mind, willing to entertain notions outside of your own. You may find it worthwhile to explore these authors. I don't know if this will make any difference to your and Peter's ongoing failure to communicate with each other, even though you intend to. :) ------------------------ 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/
