--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That, in TMO terminology, the above appears to be a GC type grook.
R: Yes; that's what I am saying. GC from the POV of the particle; KC from the unqualified Us. NM: In > my terminolgy and experiece, that the flatness for which there most be > more, is not the utimate Wholeness -- for which is a sort of black > whole -- no lack escapes from it to manifest as "there must be > something more". More a flatness of consciousness "here" vs the > wholness of Consciuousness IS. R: Yes, the wholeness of Consciousness-IS would be simply Us, Ourselves. (R)> > 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. NM: Again, GC. Krishna. R: Yes,exactly; GC and KC being the same from different (opposite) POVs. NM:Not that the black-hole of Completness or the > livliness of the world flowing and glowing in love are better than > another -- but they are different. IMO, its not the heirarchtrical > structure of TMO SoC. The I appreciate Shankaras finality that the > "Wholensss" is all that IS. The rest is contained within it. (which is > perhaps a misguided undderstanding of Shankara, but it mine.) R: No arguments there, except maybe that appears to be a particular POV, unless by "Wholeness" you mean Us, Ourself. (R) > 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. NM: For 20 years I have had perhaps a parallel experience -- where i > consciously both bless and bow to each of the 10 trillion cells in my > body (it takes some time, :)) and the wonderous parts and processes > with each cell, and the 100 billion synapes -- and then flip it and > realize i am living in what I call "Krishna's Apartment" or "Krishna's > Condo" -- the experience of the body of Krishna being a meta- universal > sized condo complex, and each of us have our own space, but are also > all part of body of Krishna. "Krishna's Condo" is sort of a in-the > world mantra for me, it invokes that state when I want it. R: Sounds a lot like the same thing ... Yes, I too started noticing this a couple of decades ago, but never thought to connect it with MMY's "AGNI: Absolute collapsing on itself" for some time thereafter; even when seeing the mechanics of that collapse, it was a while before I realized that that process is ongoing in every moment. As MMY says, "the collapse is frictionless." Have you been noticing that the ordinary thoughts you have w/r/t the particles are utterly overwhelming from their POV? The Dome helped ramp up this clarity for me, say, a hundredfold. :-) And since these particles are our senses, divinizing them divinizes our environment, so that (again using MMY's terms) the chandas itself becomes rishi, becomes Madhachandas. The point being, of course, to assimilate all the denied not-Self, not-good "demons" -- anger, lust, and so on -- and love them (and thus our bodymind, and thus our world) back into primordial radiant holiness. (R)> > 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:> Thats fine. But still there is nothing moving within that black whole > of Completeness in which all the particles are absorbed in -- yet, in > their terms, they are flowing and jiving and shucking and all. R: Again, no argument there, except that that black whole of completeness is a particular or particle's perception of 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. NM: Sounds more like the play of divinity than the black whole of > Completeness breaking into parts. Which you may say are the same, > perhaps. R: Yes, I think I would -- lila and all, except that for me the fuller appreciation of lila has come many years after seeing the completeness break into multiple completenesses :-) NM: To me its more Love/fertile potential flowing within the BH > of Completeness. The flow is flowing from its perspective, but Its > Complete and Still from the perspective of the Completeness. Like > General Relativity -- you are on earth, or on the space ship at > 99/100s the speed of light. Very different perspectives. Krishna's > Condo and the River of Love and the Sactified Heart and the Holy Steps > of every Footstep, are all happening form their view, but are al > contained within The BHoC which is Completenes and Stillness. R: Yes, and maybe No. Brahman certainly comprehends the utter dynamism and perfect stillness within Itself. OTOH the BHoC which is Completeness and (dynamic) Stillness *may also* be seen merely an experience inside Us; i.e, a particular experience or particle's POV of Us. > > R: > > From here, the process continues -- with any and every > > particle we > > > > find within ourSelf. NM: But they already are. Nothing gets out of the escape velocity of the BHoC. R: Yes, they already are, but they don't (all) yet fully know Us, nor we them; there are many we have denied or who have denied Us -- and again, I might take issue with the finality of the "escape velocity of the BHoC"...Unless you are merely referring to the Unqualified Us, the container/totality of ALL THAT IS...? I have recently found that replaying the experience of the intense absolute-Light/physical body that begins to emerge when the complete fusion of Unqualified and Particles begins to be grokked in the heartbreaking Paradise-Perfection of Us/EveryOne (and EveryOne as Our perfected body), brings up all the "stories" of the particles who beg us to stop, that the bliss is too intense; that they don't deserve/can't handle it yet...when we recognize those as stories, and allow the light to increase to infinity, we break through the Light-barrier of Brahma(n), and rediscover yet again Krishna or Narayana's body as a closer, simpler, more natural approximation to who we are...quite a surprise, but there we are :-) > > 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. NM: OK. I suppose i could say the same of you -- but I would not be that > condescending. :) R: HA! Liar! :-) Seriously, from my POV, literal enlightenment does occur for each of our particles when we love them into knowing Us. > > 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". > NM: Or breath in, and exhale out. And flow it through every cell. As Bliss > devours the phantom shadow that used to be an us. R: Yes, exactly, that particle has then come to know Us :-) (R) > 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 > NM: Or that the Personal God is contained within Still Completeness. R: Yes, in the sense that the Personal God is the POV of the particle; its appreciation of Our appreciation of it. That Still Completeness appears to be really one way of seeing or describing Us, the unqualified. (R) > (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 > > :-) NM: Breath it up through the top of our head. R: Could be; it just seems to be assimilated into Me; into My fire. I am Shiva or the sacrificial fire; it is in U.C., and then we are truly One, Our body has become more divinized; it has come to know me. > > R: > unconsciously with that particle, giving that particle > > unconscious > > > > sovereignty -- at this time the particle is in Ignorance in our > > > > Brahman. NM: Different connotation of the term than me. For me, Brahman, not a word > i use much, is the BHoC. To posit or imagine or refer to multiple > Brahmans is a laughingfulness. R: Who said there were multiple Brahmans? But I like the laughingfulness, so hey, why not. :-) > > 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 :-) NM: That may be a way to say it. Perhaps more on that later. > > 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. > NM: It does and it doesn't. IMV. Consciousness knows itself everywhere. > Yet the rock does not have a nervous system capable of reflecting the > reality that Consciousness knows ItSelf here, there and everywhere -- > in every particle of the rock. R: Right, we do -- that is, as you point out, we can know our reality through "rock-consciousness" but only insofar as it exists as a facet of our own consciousness. Actually rock is in a sense one of my greatest devotees. As a portion of my Being it adores me, and I enjoy and appreciate what it plays out for me. Other devotees are far less conscious of their relationship with me! :-) R: >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. NM: So your wholeness is on yet complete. Not the BHoC which to me is > Brahman. So we use terms differently. No foul, no penalty. But > possibly it would be good if we define our terms when used in > non-standard ways. :) R: I am utterly Unqualified, beyond the gunas, and I incarnate them wholeheartedly, so My wholeness is fully complete and unchanging *and* always learning and growing, same as yours. Everytime We entertain a thought, a new Wholeness, a new Brahma(n)and its universe-bubble springs into being which longs with all its heart to return to Us, while simultaneously sustaining its Loka of not-Us and fearing what it mistakenly believes is its universal annihilation. What are ordinary thoughts or dreams to Us, are utterly Real to our particles, our devata/devotees. That's the beauty of being free of the gunas; we can give them whatever they most desire, right? :-) > 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/
