Tom,
Thank you for your response. From your note, it apears that you may think that I am trying to somehow pigeonhole your experience or peg labels ot them. Its just the opposite. I have written pretty extensively on the past on what a waste of time I think that is. My view is that experiences and understandings happen. Period. Taking a bundle of experiences and clothing them in an abstraction - a conceptual framework -- is usually not my cup of tea. I have long advocated not using labels to define experiences, which IMO usually create more confusion than clarity. Even in a fairly uniform school of understanding, such as the TMO -- where terms have been defined fairly precisely -- any one term, concept or label having to do with higher states (in it self a label) has a lot of baggage -- lots of different connotations to various folks. Such as "enlightenment". So clearly defined in the TMO, yet say it on this list and people will think many different things. So I prefer to stick to discussion of experiences, understandings, their attributes and interpretations. Interpreations a key thing. Various people could have the same experience and yet interpret it in quite differet ways. And then they may in turn articulate their interpretations in quite different ways. So even sticking to experiences is tricky. This said, when people use traditional labels to describe their experiences, then for me, that raises a series of questions: do we understand this label in the same way? Does their interpreation of their experience seem clear? Does their interpreation match the criteria of the label (of some state or achievement). Again, not the path I usually would choose to go down, but if someone uses a traditional or TMO framework or concept to label a set of attributes of their experiences, clarifying questions are useful in order to facilitate communication. Otherwise, someone may say, "i am awake" or I am enlightened" and I may understand those terms in quite different ways than the speaker. This process began over a year ago when you and Rory began to speak of your experiences using terms such as enlightenment, Brahman, Brahman Consciousness, etc. Maybe not all such terms were used by you -- I would have to check the archives. The point is that was my impression and interpreation of what the two of you were saying. And I may have been incorrrect. If so, I apologie and stand corrected. The point is, it is from my interpreation of what you appeared to be saying, and using terms used both by the TMO and tradition, that I started the above process of trying to claify what you meant by these terms, what experiences and understandings correlated with the label, etc. My efforts have never been to label or pigeonhole people into a certain label. What I may do, in seeking clarification, is to say "you seem to be using a label that the TMO or tradition has used, to describe your overall state, bundle of experiences or understanding. In the TMO or traditionally, such a word has these attributes. Your experiences don't appear, or do appear, whatever the case may be, to fit such definitions of the label you use." I do this not to challenge, but rather as an effort to get everyone on the same page. And again, a lot of this process would not pursued if the labels were not used, but rather the just an articulation of raw experiences and understandings were presented. Its in the above spirit that I have asked the following questions, made some obsrvations, and in this post have continued to do so. --- In [email protected], "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom T comments interspersed: > Akasha 108 questions Tom T: > However, in recent posts you said Brahman has been attained. And in > the past you talked a lot (as it appeared to me) about having attained Brahaman Consciousness. Has your interpretation of your experiences and understandings changed from those over the last year or so? > Tom T: > No, only deepened as I described in the second half of that post about the appreciation and intimacy. That led me to the experience that I have consummated my relationship with the totality. There is nothing that is not me and I am totality. Simple experience, hard to explain. > Akasha108: > I am all for simplicity of expression regarding experiences and > undertandings. Putting labels on people doesnt seem either practical > or useful. However, looking at the characterics, in and of themselves, of various sets of experiences and understandings has some value IMO. Your recent posts describing characteristics of your experiences and understandings raise a basic question in this regard. They seem to be, for the most part, articulations of CC turiya type experiences and understandings. > Tom T: > CC is from my understanding a state where there is still a little I > that is silently witnessing all that is going on. Akasha response: Though semantics may be getting in the way, your words as I understand them, indicate that you have an incorrect understanding of the concept of CC as the TMO defines it and as classical literature defines it (often refering to it as turiya). Akasha response: No "I" or individuality exists in CC. There is no small I witnessing. The term witnessing is a poetic allusion, often misunderstood - in that it implies a subject/individuality doing the witnessing. This is not the case. There is no a subject/individuality doing any witnessing Akasha response: There is, as you have described your experiences at times, (pure) consciousness experiencing (pure) consciousness. Wakefulness experiencing wakefulness. This is distinct from the functioning of mind and intellect which continue along their path. Pure consciousness has no individualization. There is no individual consciousness, or individualization witnessing. The poetic term witness comes about to explain the non explainable experience of action happening, thoughts arising, things getting done, while consciousness is a wake within itself. Tom T: There is no longer a little I to witness. There is the experience that all the processing is happening wherever the attention falls. No longer a central processing I to have a relationship with all that is happening. Akasha response: That is an experience of CC. > Akasha108: > As Vaj said the other day -- something to the effect > -- I just dont get the UC/BC aspect of these experiences. And Vaj has brought up numerous elements that traditionally are associated with BC/UC which don't seem enlivened in your experiences and understandings. > Tom T: > Don't know about those and they are not happening as that is not the > path of this unit. ... Sorry, your criteria just might be wrong or I fall outside the norm. Akasha response: Again, what ever you experience and understand is great and wonderful. I like reading about it. However, you have used the term Brahaman and BC extensively. And recently you said paraphrasing, Brahman has been attained by many at your satsangs - includng the writer. > Tom T: What happens in the relative is of, for and by the relative. Akasha response: In UC or BC there is no longer relative. Your statement implies a strong dualistic view characteristic of CC. Akasha response: My questioning is simply along the lines I outlined above. Your use of a TMO and/or traditional term of BC to describe the experiences and understandings you have articulated -- as wonderful as they are -- do not appear to fit either TMO or traditional definitions. Tom: > In either case I don't need to fit into anyone else's definition. Akasha response: Of course you don't and no one is asking you to. However, if you are using a TMO or traditional label to describe yoru experiences, it would be useful to clarify that you are using it in a different way than the TMO or tradition does. Or at least be open to having others point that out. Again, to facilitate communication. > Akasha108: > Your use of the term Brahman may be the stumbling block, for some, in understanding your posts. You characterize Brahman as the experiencer. That could be seen as a cc turiya experience. However the use of the term Brahman may have lead some, possibly you included, to interpret the turiya experience as BC. When you replace Brahamn with Atman or Inner Wakefulness or Consciousness or Self as the experiencer, it is consistent with most turiya descriptions. Can you interpret your experiences / understandings using some or all of these terms instead of Brahman? > Tom T: > Like I said above we may be on different pages of the akashic records. There is no small self here, Akasha: A CC experience > Tom T: there is no inner wakefulness. Akasha: A CC experience, depending on semantics. There is no spatial boundary to wakefulness in CC. Tom T: > It is all out there. Every where I look it is me. It is all subject. > Object shows up only when attention is paid. Akasha: Others may best comment on this. To me it appears to fit UC, not BC. And depending on semantics, could be an expression of experience in CC Tom T: If this is all me who the hell is left to > witness, observe or take note. I am it all, experiencing myself as > experience. Akasha: The above seems to contrast with your prior statement, and a number of similar statements in recent posts " What happens in the relative is of, for and by the relative." If IT is all you, then there is no relative. Given your strong dualistic statments in other places, the statement immediately above " If this is all me who the hell is left to > witness, observe or take note. I am it all, experiencing myself as experience" could be seen as a dualistic observation of CC. Tom T: I am not attached to this label. Akasha: Nor am I trying to label you. I am trying to understand why you feel your experiences are Brahman BC/UC a term you introduced to describe your state / experience / understanding. Tom T: It is enough to share > whatever I can for whomever this makes a difference for. Akasha: Your posts are often of great value. Tom T: You may call it what ever. I will in the future be carefull to fit into the prescribed definitions. Akasha: This appears to be sacrasm or anger. Sorry if I have perterbed you. I I am not trying to label you, I am only trying to clarify the definitions and labels that you use. To do so, I have "labeled: some experiences as sounding like CC, not with classification as a purpose, but rather to provide a possible alternative interpretation of your experiences, other than Brahman. If it fits great, if it doesn't, great. Again, I greatly value your posts and insights. My efforts are towards clarification. I'm sure I can pursue such with greater grace and charm. I will work on that. 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/
