--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But if cc is a state clouded by several sets of remaining,
unpurified
> koshas, and GC the same, just less koshas, why would it be
advantagous
> to "regress" back to them at times? While there maybe be further
> refinement and purification of "filters" in UC, thus it is not the
> ultimate truth (a nebulous concept itself), but again, whay does
going
> back to more clouded states "help" bring greater clarity?
Rory writes:
Many thanks for asking! Not sure if at this point I could in truth
really subscribe to the gradual-purification-of-koshas model.
Rather, it appeared to be that very model kept me from finally
Understanding. From this point of view, Brahman is like the double-
napped cone, and the various states of consciousness "before"
or "inside" Brahman are like the various conic sections derived from
slicing a plane through various places and at various angles of the
cone. Thus:
Sleep as the point derived from passing a horizontal plane through
the juncture-point of the two nappes;
Dreaming as the line derived from a diagonal plane touching an edge
of the nappes;
Waking as the X or plane derived from a vertical plane through the
nappes;
Transcendence as the circle derived from a horizontal plane above or
below the juncture of the nappes;
C.C. as the ellipse derived from slightly tilting the circle's plane;
G.C. as the parabola derived from tilting the ellipse's plane into a
diagonal parallel to the angle of the cone;
U.C. as the hyperbola or double-parabola derived from a vertical
plane to one side of the juncture-point of the nappes.
Which of these is "superior to" or "clearer than" the next? While in
one sense they do or can "progress" smoothly from one state to the
next, there is nothing that says we cannot play with them in any
other order from that given above, or go back and forth until the
properties of each are clearly understood. Rather, they are all in
one sense utterly identical, in that they each show one property of
the cone, as perceived through the "illusion" of a separate
experiencer. (Yes, this even seemed to remain in U.C.) Taking none
of them as the ultimate Truth or taking them all together,
simultaneously, one can leap beyond them to arrive at the true
nature of the cone itself: Brahman, beyond the separate plane of the
experiencer. No experiencer, no experienced; only THAT.
Oddly, though, we can draw a two-dimensional sketch of the double-
napped cone as an X with two horizontal ellipses -- one between its
top two points and one between its bottom two points, and a close
(ish) proximation of Brahman is "it's kind of like C.C. (the
ellipse) AND ignorance (the X) simultaneously"! Or, "I am fully
enjoying waking-state ignorance AND utter contentment!" or something
like that. But there is no separation, as there was in C.C. And
there is no sense of lack, as there was in Waking State.
As to uninterrupted witnessing of sleep and so on -- yes,
absolutely, if that is deemed necessary and desirable, and for as
long as it is desired. I believe that need be just long enough
to "get it" as a separate state before moving onto another and
eventually (one hopes) merging or transcending them into Brahman.
(After Brahman, a different form of sleep may well be there. For
some years after Brahman while "sleeping" each night I was gathering
information from a College in the Sirius system, which I would spend
the whole next day writing down. Also, in sleep it appears we
conjointly orchestrate the coming world-events.) Whether one is
asleep or awake is almost a moot point. Parts of "me" are always
asleep; parts are always dreaming, and parts are always awake. It's
really a matter of attention or focus.
Beyond a certain point it is no more nor less necessary than any
other criteria, as far as I can see -- and if you are using that or
any criterion to "judge" your or anyone else's enlightenment, you
are putting the cart before the horse -- binding yourself to
external phenomena, and blinding yourself to what really IS. As far
as I can see, one can never know THAT so long as one is putting any
such criterion whatsoever on it. This would of necessity reify it
out of its primordial innocence, because THAT is (in a sense) always
shaping itself to satisfy your desires, conscious or unconscious.
Dropping all such expectation, and surrendering to the perfection of
what IS, seems to be the only way to Understand/be Understood, it
seems to me.
Rory earlier wrote:
> > -- that what was ardently desired was only Perfection, NOW --
> > and that accepting and surrendering into that resulted in the
> > immediate death of my Soul, the old witnessing "I AM",
Akasha wrote:
> And how would you define soul at that point? As one of the koshaa?
as
> Mahat? as Solar Angel? - See adjacent post on Koshas and
Experiencers.
Rory writes:
Using the earlier model of Purusha (Spirit) gradually merging with
Prakriti (Matter), the Soul would be the intermediary between the
two which was no longer needed. In that model, it would be among the
three bodies of Manas (Mental), Ahamkara (Causal or Solar Angel),
and Buddhi (Intuition), which had been place-holders or lieutenants
between Spirit and Matter. What had happened -- we might suggest -
was that Prakriti had now ascended as far as the Heart, or Buddhi,
and Purusha had descended as far as the Navel, or Manas.
Experientially, one's "insides" are removed and strewn all over
creation, and all of creation is inside oneself. The Ultimate Ground
is now Understood: Like our traditional understanding of C.C.
(somewhat) in its starkly ordinary clarity; quite unlike that C.C.
in that the witness is gone; there is now literally nothing else,
nothing other. The paradoxical ("slippery") nature of THAT is now
directly perceivable. It is not simply Absolute, nor simply
Relative; these terms cease to have any real meaning. Indescribable,
really. The Self. (One does however put something like the Causal
Body back on again eventually, but it is no longer seen in the same
light as "I" -- it is simply one of many of Us; one of our servants,
as it were.)
Rory earlier wrote:
> > as "I" was
> > ripped open into realization of THAT which had been there all
along,
Akasha wrote:
> And what was the "I" at this point? Avyakta?
Rory writes:
At which point? Before or after the stripping? If we use the model
of Purusha/Prakriti merging, "I" had been Purusha descending as far
as the Unmanifest Avyakta in C.C. (together with Prakriti ascending
into the Karmendriyas or action-organs), as the god-forms of Mahat-
Atman in G.C. (together with Prakriti ascending into the sense -
rogans or Indriyas), and as Intuition or Buddhi in U.C (together
with Prakriti ascending into Concrete Mind or Manas). However,
the "I" which had been interpreting or transforming or "claiming"
all of these energies was the Ahamkara, or Solar Angel, in the Solar
Plexus (or bottom of the heart). It was the dissolution of this "I"
that accompanied the mergence and overlap of Purusha and Prakriti.
(And again, please note that this is just a rough model. We can say
that Shakti arises and meets Shiva in the Crown chakra probably at
every intitiation, certainly as early as the ecstatic kundalini
energy-flows of G.C. There appears to be a more-or-less continuous
or continual stream of energy between Purusha and Prakriti at our
two poles, but that these two themselves apparently gradually
approach, overlap and merge.)
Rory wrote earlier:
> > ignored in my unconscious search for something other than what
IS.
Akasha wrote:
> because koshas were veiling it?
Rory writes:
Because of the separation of Purusha and Prakriti, held apart by the
belief in an individual Soul. Because of expectation and desire, of
subtle bondage to phenomena, of lack of responsibility, of belief in
time and space, of belief in self and other -- all fine things, so
long as they are not taken too seriously. When we forget it's our
own game or self-portrait, we begin to believe in separation and
imperfection and suffering. In my opinion, attempting to raise the
consciousness of the world, while seemingly laudable, is still
symptomatic of "combing the mirror" or attending to the speck in our
neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in our own. And yet, here I
am, pretending that what "I" write can in any way help "you"! Of
course it can't. "I" and "you" don't exist; there is only one of Us,
and that's already perfect. We're just passing time. When the time
is right and the desire is ripe, the razor-sharp sword slices open
our cocoon and our light spills out unto and into everything. This
happened to some "one" on FFL just the other day, and I suspect on
some level every "one" knows it. :-) But maybe not. Who knows?
Rory earlier wrote:
> >I cannot really speak for anyone's state of consciousness other
than
> > my own and how others look inside my field, and really everyone
> > looks pretty darn good,
Akasha wrote:
> You used to say, along with others, that enlightened ones would
> "tickle" you in a certain way or resonate. Is this looking inside
your
> field the same thing, or a different process?
Rory writes:
A little different. That would be more passive; this is more active.
Looking inside my field in this case is simply remembering that it
is all "I". (Everything then starts to sing together.) Going to
Dunkin' Donuts with my wife yesterday, I silently remembered this
(eyes open) for a few moments while in line and to my surprise, all
the customers and servers started smiling and laughing; everyone's
face started physically glowing; their movements became smooth and
dancelike, as if they were at Satsang. Did "I" do this? No, yes,
maybe? (How) Does "my" attention evoke ojas in "another's" body?
Attention is love, and love promotes evolution, maybe? At any rate,
it is slightly different from what I wrote earlier in that at that
time, I was perhaps not relaxing into full responsibility for
everything. :-) I am probably still not, but I am learning! *lol*
Rory earlier wrote:
> fully enlightened in fact, even those doing
> > a great job of pretending they are in ignorance for the time
being.
Akasha wrote:
> One can pretend an impurified kosha is not there, but if it is, it
is.
> Purusha is still Purusha, but the reflection of its knowing Itself
is
> not/less felt due to the koshas. Pretending this way or that way
> doesnt apear to affect that.
Rory writes:
Yes, absolutely right; it's not on that level of pretending; only
from Brahman's or Purusha's point of view does it appear to be
pretending, just a case of where we puts our attention. We probably
can't effectively pretend that an impurity is not there. Rather, we
have to drop the habitual pretense that it *is* there. It really is
only a dropping of all pretense, of all resistance. We could step
it "down" a level or two and say that the Universe is deeply and
passionately in love with us, and wants nothing more than to see us
fulfilled. We just have to stop blocking Her, stop giving Her mixed
messages. It is but a step or two from there to see that She already
IS giving us exactly what we're asking for, in this moment.
Rory earlier wrote:
> > That said, I do notice when someone is resisting the "me" in
them,
Akasha wrote:
> Yes, letting totaly go seems to be a wise practice.
Rory writes:
Totally! To the max! :-)
Rory earlier wrote:
> > and Tom is one of the few I have seen who presents no resistance
> > whatsover, ever. He is also the first to understand me on FFL
when I
> > was saying that Brahman is not an experience, it is an
> > Understanding, actually the radical Understanding. This is
something
> > that people experiencing C.C. and G.C. and even Unity do not, in
my
> > opinion, generally actually get. That subtle ego or causal body
> > seems to get in the way, still claiming the "experience" for its
> > own. :-)
>
>
> > (To attempt some of Vaj's questions from this perspective, the
loss
> > of the Causal body was a huge shock that took some time to get
used
> > to -- the "fishbowl" quality of I/THAT/Everything presented
nothing
> > to hold on to, anywhere.
Akasha wrote:
> Was this the bliss body? The transcendental body? Were losing each
a separate experience?
Rory writes:
The only time it felt like a loss was that once, when the
Soul/Causal body split open. And even then, it was so obviously a
gain rather than a loss -- "it is finished" -- that losing one's
soul was not a big deal compared to gaining the whole world. *lol*
Obviously, not in the sense that that scripture is normally
interpreted! *lol*
Akasha wrote:
> In Turiya, a comon experience is "nothing to hang onto" .
Rory writes:
If I am right in my understanding of C.C., G.C., and U.C.,
the "nothing to hang onto" in C.C. is indeed a taste of Brahman, but
it is all in a sense interior; there is still all of the relative or
Prakriti "out there" waiting to be resolved. The "absolute" or
Purusha and the "relative" or Prakriti have both been perfectly
cognized -- Purusha as Avyakta and Prakriti as Karmendriyas -- but
the gulf between them is (apparently) huge. In Brahman for the first
time, there is no real distinction anymore. No inner, no outer; no
absolute, no relative. Asleep, awake; eyes open, eyes shut: no
difference. Nothing to hang onto anywhere.
Akasha wrote:
Yet there
> are still Mahat and Avyakta to hang onto -- if this upanishadic
model
> is correct. Are you referring to the loss of Mahat and Avyakta as
> Experiencers, leaving only Pure Purusha as Experiencer? If so how
did
> loss of Mahat and Avyakta as Experiencers compare to loss of Mahat
(or
> solar angel) as Experiencer?
Rory writes:
No, as far as I can see Purusha maintains its various qualities of
Avyakta and Mahat-Atman; it is simply that the lower mind (manas),
ego (Ahamkara) and higher mind (Buddhi) are blown out. Rendered
obsolete. Purusha and Prakriti have then merged and overlapped into
that region, so there is no need for the separate soul in its old
function as interpreter and place-holder.
> Questions on the rest later.
>
> Thanks for any insights you may provide.
FWIW you're more than welcome; many thanks to you! Your questions
have really helped me better comprehend this whole Purusha-Prakriti
dance. It may not be absolutely correct, but I like it so far! :-)
Yours,
R.
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/
