If this is what you meant as "my point" Lawson sez:
And again: noticing something, however subtle, even the first glimmering of awareness of awareness, is no longer pure consciousness. Empty Bill sez: Theny ou do not understand what the witness actually is. However,if you are referring to a point that is different, then please restate you point. Lawson also sez: There are two different comments I have heard on this topic that apply, at least for me: 1. there is no end to how subtle the mantra can become. 2. the thought OF the mantra is still the mantra. Empty Bill sez: 1. There is indeed an end to the subtlety of the mantra. According to Patanjali, the scale of subtlety terminatesin the "a-linga" the quality of unmarked, non-differentiation (YS 1.45). Thus,whether an object is a physical quanta or a subjective thought, pradhana/prakritiis the final field of subtlety. Empty Bill further sez about your claim that - 2. The thought OF the mantra is NOT the mantra. If your statement were true then simply the thought "mantra"would equally qualify as the mantra. A "thought of" or "thought about" the mantra is simply a thought that is all. The actual meditation bija-mantra is that human speech sound pronounced by the initiating teacher. Any thought that is either"of" or "about" the bija-mantra, is a relational remembrance a signal to return to the mantra but is not the mantra itself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > Many words, none of which address my point. > > L > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > > > One of the first signs of the progressive development of CC is the > > simultaneous presence of "pure awareness" together with either > > the mantra or thought(s). > > > > You are not accounting for this development but are treating "pure > > consciousness" only in the exclusionary terms of TC. MMY never > > treated CC as a sudden appearance but rather as a gradual refinement and > > clarification of the gross and subtle values of the nervous system. > > > > MMY emphasized that "Pure Awareness/Pure Consciousness" is > > always present because it is the "who" in who-we-are. He always > > pointed to this as the reason anyone might transcend spontaneously > > during ordinary human experience and that, in fact, such had happened > > many times in documented human history. > > > > Shankara, for his part, pointed out that the sakshi/witness is what we > > are and can never be generated by any yoga, quality of knowing or any > > activity. > > > > Lawson sez: > > > > Buddhists and other traditions warn of getting trapped in subtle > > experiences. As presented, and argued, the instruction is to revel in > > the trap, in the guise of calling it something other than a trap. > > > > Another case of "sweet poison," which SSRS appears to indulge in a lot, > > it seems. > > > > To bad you need to make such claims. You are so poorly informed about > > other meditative traditions that you believe you can include them as a > > misfit "proof" of your assertions. When you make a claim such as > > the one above you demonstrate that you are a clueless TM ideologue. > > > > Robin gets a pass because when he generalizes about "The East" > > everyone here knows he has no clue about these traditions. You, however, > > present yourself as if you understood them when you so obviously do not. > > > >
