Interesting. I used to have a lot of visual and auditory experiences in meditation and they always left me confused. I would come out of meditation and deny what I had just *seen* or *heard* until I realized it wasn't a matter of *seeing* or *hearing*, it was a matter of *Being*. I didn't *see* it because I *was* it. *I* was the whole experience. M used to say, Unity, it it's early days, can be very confusing. Never understood what he meant at the time, then it dawned on me.
On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:51 AM, "anartax...@yahoo.com" <anartax...@yahoo.com> wrote: There is the experience of wholeness. You are not 'in it', the experience is it; there is nothing attached to it. The mind can play the game of trying to understand it with its habit of conditional thinking but ultimately it just has to surrender to the fact that that doesn't work. The unity does not have to do anything to hold together; it is not like a ball of caramel popcorn stuck together that can come apart. There is what is described as unity, but there is no one in it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: OK - Thank you for revealing your lack of experience with GC. Frankly, it didn't sound to me, as if you knew what you were talking about, when you first brought it up. I am also curious why you think you are "in unity". It sounds like your unity has a lot of conditions attached to it, in order to remain unified. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > >The thought popped into my head, and then I put to the keyboard and you read >it. As basically an atheist, I seemed to have mostly done an end run around >GC, it had no conceptual material to work with, as GC, as M explained it, >derives its material from what one's beliefs are in regard to spiritual >traditions etc. Still this state is described in various ways. For example the >philosopher Plotinus said nous (pure being) falls in love and is simplified >into a happy fullness. > > >I remember writing some things long ago that from an emotional point of view >correspond with what Buck is writing now, but I did not express it in >religious terms. Benchmarks are guide posts but are not rigid time and place >dependent markers, and you might experience something of unity even when you >are barely transcending as a new meditator, or if you are one of those rare >individuals like Ekhart Tolle or Krishnamurti, you might just slip into unity >without any preliminaries. Unity throws you off the path, the path dies, you >are on your own, and there is no way to doubt it, if it is clear enough. By on >your own, I mean there isn't anything else, even though you can refer to your >body as 'me' and so forth. Everything that went before is seen through as >having been as a fraud. > > >Eventually you can look at it any way you like, as wholeness, as unity, as >duality. Everything that was there before is still there except the >relationship of thought with experience undergoes a profound shift, their >roles are reversed so to speak, thought becoming secondary. Those words, >duality, unity are not what is experienced, they are just ways you try to >convey the potential of that experience to someone else. You cannot give it to >them because they have it in spades already. They just do not realise what it >can be for them so you try to light a fire under them to get them moving in >the proper direction, which is not a direction at all. Basically you want >their mind to completely stop, and eventually recognize what the significance >of that is. There are things people can learn to do that seems to increase the >probability that this will happen, like meditation. > > >Buck has been expressing himself dualistically, so I was rubbing the grain the >other way. So if you are in unity, and someone smashes an ice cream cone in >your face, are you going to assume the universe has no parts? > > > >---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: >> >> >>Hi, Your post brought up a few questions for me: >> >> >>What gives you the idea that God Consciousness is the *last* stage of >>delusion? What does that even mean, and how would you know? Are you willing >>to share your deluded experiences of GC with me? >> >> >> >>Also, if Buck is the unified field, aren't you looking to him, and therefore, >>looking to it, when addressing him? >>Why can't duality occur within the wholeness of Unity, according to you? >> >> >> >>Thx >>(rhymes with Spx) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote: >>> >>> >>>This is redundant Buck. You are the unified field, you cannot look to it. >>>Are you by any chance in that last stage of delusion known as GC? >>> >>> >>> >>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>My spirit looks to the Unified Field alone, >>>>My rock and refuge is Its throne. >>>>In all my fears, in all my straits, >>>>My soul on Its salvation waits. >>>>Trust It, ye meditators, in all your ways, >>>>Pour out your hearts before Its face; >>>>When helpers fail and foes invade, >>>> >>>>the Unified Field is our all-sufficient aid. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Paraphrased excerpt from "Psalm 62" by Isaac Watts: >>>> >>>> >>>>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/watts/psalmshymns.Ps.131.html >>>> >>>> >>>>
