Hi, Akasha! Apologies for the delay in responding to this. I set it aside to give it the thought it deserved :-)
NM: For me, your posts have always had a Theosophy Society flavor -- I > presume thats your path of integrating your past studies and models > with presentness. Experientially, I have always found the Theosopy > flavor of their books and your posts to be detailed spider webs -- > along the lines of "stories our Wholeness and our particles have been > telling us/themselves" that prolong the estrangment from "This is what > we have always been, and what we always will be". R: I played with some of the Theosophical concepts for a year or two after awakening, yes. While imperfect, they provided some framework for expressing the unfoldments that took place after realizing That Alone Is. Because for me at least, there remained much more to be done. It has been a lot of fun and most fulfilling to see others now describing the *precise* same experiences, in the same sequence, I went through then, and to hear MMY's terminology and description and still-deeper understanding of them. NM: And "paticles within Brahman", and one being the Brahman for others > or particles -- such notions bespeak a quite different, and IMO, > limited Brahman. R: The collapse of Brahman into particles is as a direct result of realizing there must be more than simply THAT, ALL THAT IS. When I wanted to know how all of THIS came to appear to be, THAT laughed, and shattered into an infinite number of "I"s -- each still containing ALL-THAT-IS, but each now concentrated into an infinitesimal point. So now we have the possibility of something more than ALL-THAT-IS. We have the geometries or mechanics of multiplicity, of Maya. Perhaps more to the point, THAT became recognized as too flat, too impersonal, too uncaring, to be "enough." For me this unfoldment came when I realized that if THAT is big enough to be infinite, it can certainly be big enough to be small enough to care about me -- whereon it collapsed into a bliss-point with *personality* -- with charm -- Krishna. ALL-THAT-IS -- and more. The very quintessence of THAT, concentrated THAT. I also found that by paying attention to these bliss-particles inside my physical body, I was appearing as something "larger" than they -- as a kind of Avatar to them. Then I noticed that a still- larger form of me was giving *me* the same loving attention I had been giving the tiny particles. Finally I realized that it was all the same Me -- that I was simply collapsing into my particles to experience the extraordinary effect of my ordinary thought. I create these particles, in other words, as devatas or devotees to experience and enjoy the cosmic values of myself. Over time, I came to appreciate that not only are We are all of the above, but also none of the above -- we are still utterly Unqualified, as well -- and it is from this Unqualified stance that we can "play" with our particles, give them whatever they most desire, and experience the supreme bliss that is their love for Us. NM: The thing is, IT IS. In my experience, there is no "some of IT", or > partial Brahmans as background for someones partial awareness -- > unless the experience and/or imagination of IT is in some quite > limited ways. R: Yes, IT IS...and IT also appears limited, with partial awareness (es) for the fun of playing with ITself and continual rediscovery of ITself from different angles. R: > > From here, the process continues -- with any and every particle we > > find within ourSelf. > NM: I know "Self" -- or in this case "ourSelf", are words english > translators use for what sanskrit texts (hardly the only ones that > dwell on such) term Atman and Brahman. But "Self" has always seemed > "bogus" or foreign from the experience. IT IS, and has nothing to do > with individuality which is a mirage. Or an individuality owning > Brahman. The individuality never becomes Brahman, an individuality > never becomes enlightened, IT IS. R: I am finding otherwise, but I respect that this is true for you in this moment. R: > We first > > find ourselves identifying > NM: And who is the "we" (kimosobe? :)) and why did this "finding" come > "first" ? :) R: The unqualified Us, the Indescribable. The identification with a particle came "first" in spacetime, as it took Us a while to appreciate that we are not that, and still longer to appreciate that that is indeed Us, or one aspect of Us, emerging and returning to Us. As we pay attention to that aspect of not-us, that thought or story or whatever, it warms up into divine/devata/devotee, and it becomes good enough to "eat". Meanwhile "back" in spacetime, that particle-us is witnessing its brains out (when we separate it from Us), then beginning to see that the Impersonal God is personal after all (when we give it our loving attention), and finally realizing with a slight shock that the Beloved and It are One (when we see ourself in it) -- and then we "eat" it, and it yields up all its data to Us in bliss. Yum! And Now it is our eternal devotee/devata :-) R: > unconsciously with that particle, giving that particle unconscious > > sovereignty -- at this time the particle is in Ignorance in our > > Brahman. > NM: "your brahaman" -- if an individuality is claiming Brahman, that is a > different IT than has "proclaimed ITself" Here and NOW. R: Not exactly an individual as you are describing -- rather, we say "our Brahman" because Brahman is our light-field. Behind or within the light-field is Us, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Krishna-devotees have it right, in this instance :-) R: > > Then, we realize that this is not Us, but a particle within > > Us -- we then become that particle's Witness, its conscious Brahman > NM: "That" particle is as Whole as This particle. The rock is as whole as > the see-er of the rock. IT IS. R: Sure -- but "That" particle doesn't fully know Its own wholeness, doesn't know Me yet. That's the fun of it! It's going to find Me in its own way, on its own terms, and show Me something entirely new about Myself. R: > - while it is identifying with C.C. Then, we give that particle our > > loving attention, warming it up into its a priori bliss, becoming > > its personal God or Avatar or Krishna, while it is identifying with > > G.C. Then it perceives its ultimate identity with us in Shiva/U.C., > > and we finally come back to primordial Radiant Self. We are > > constantly throwing off particles of not-self, and re- integrating > > them back into ourSelf, as pulsations of our Now into all 9 (and > > eventually 27) states -- this is how we learn to appreciate ourSelf > > and our various qualities... > NM: More nice stories. To keep IT from IT. haha. R: YES! And to return to Me and show Me more of Myself. haha! 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
