--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear akasha, > > Many thanks! Your post, while (as always) beautifully expressed, is > too long and involved for me at the moment to reproduce and > interleaf, answering point by point.
Well, I would love to hear you address my points when you have the time. As well as Tom. He said three days ago that he would get back to me shortly, regarding my original post. I lok forward to his response also, along with yours. Bottom line: I do not know what > Tom's consciousness is to himself; I know what he is in me. Does it follow that if I know what he is in me, then that provides a valid assessment ofhim? If not, why is the inside of you more valid than the inside of me. (Its all Brahamn isn't it, inside and out?) Or are you simple saying that you have a view of him inside of you but that you assign no particular importance or validity to it, no better or worse than anyone elses assessemnt? > His > descriptions of the actual extinction of the small self, of the > death of the witness -- like Peter's -- I can only identify with the > extinction of Ahamkara in B.C. Rob Svboda, amongst others, well versed in samkya (from which the concept of ahamkara arises), tantra, and well acquaited with saints that have quite interesting if not phenomenal states and abilites, says if one really looses all Ahamkara, their physical body, amongst other things, would explode and dissolve. Did Shankara refer to Ahamkara totally disolving? > Thanks to our dialogue, I > am getting a lot clearer on "where" these states of consciousness > are in the Purusha-body. They do serve a purpose. Glad I can be of help. But since your knowledge is in a transitional state, it appears that tomorrow, and next month, and next year, you may have a more refined view, that could contradict that which you think now. By your own word, your knowledge does not appear to be end-state. Shankara, amongst others, appear to have stabilized in state of end-state knowledge. Assuming they were not delusional, I would tend to trust thier views more at this juncture. > Yes, C.C. knows the perfect duality of the Unmanifest and the > Relative, but it has no conception of the extinction of the "small > self," the Guru-Christ-Self or Ahamkara. What has died? Nothing. Peter's long described (I didn't say long winded -- but then again high capacity prana inhalation - exhalation abilities IS a good thing!) experience of No Self in CC contradicts this. However, I know your position on this: Peter is misinterpreting his experience. That may be the case, but it could go either way I suppose. If you open the door to misinterpreatation, he may be also be misinterpreting in the wrong direction -- that is, his experiences are not even "cc". And I suppose it opens the door for you mis-interpretting your own experiences (and Tom's) -- perhaps they are not as grand as you personally perceive them. Indeed you just said I was blowing them out of proportion, indicating what you experience is not so grand, in your own view. So, bottom line, either Peter is misinterpreting his experiences, or you are misinterpreting them -- along with your own. U.C. > knows it's all me, that I embrace all space-time if I care to put my > attention there, but again it has no conception of the extinction of > the unsuspected intermediating small self which is yet to come. That seems to contradict a lot of Advaitic and probably tantric thought. Any comments on Rory's view by Vaj, Dana, Sailor Bob's protogee's, rudrani(sp), or others? > Again, this small self is virtually invisible until its sudden > disappearance in B.C., when the rug is totally pulled out and there > are no longer any distinctions anywhere; there ONLY is the emptiful > Great Immensity. Or maybe that is simply CC, and you have misinterpreted prior states. > Your mind(s) is/are beautifully refined, and I mean that in all awe > and appreciation of your intellect. But at the moment you still > appear (to me) to be pretending perhaps to be Ahamkara-bound (this > as evidenced by your attempts to distinguish and separate the self- > evidently inseparable with logic), and so we really cannot go any > further; logic is lovely but utterly useless where the ever-present > and non-dual B.C. is concerned. THAT recognizes THAT. Well Shankara and Patanjali, amongst others appear to have lauded the value of refining buddhi. Until it is glass like and can sit on the threshold of all knowledge. Subtle and sharp enought to make the "final distinction". Sharp enough to really "GET IT" via the Mahavakya. To "GET" the fundamental musunderstanding of the intellect (prior to glass like state). > That's how I > recognize Tom to be speaking the Truth. But then you may be delusional. > It's a freakin' paradox only > the unselfed heart-belly can comprehend. I have heard persons very high on LSD -- during and after, say similar things. Emphatic proclomation or personal belief that something is so, does not make it so. It seems a weak retreat to say "well, i can't counter the contradictions you point out, or find holes in your your logic, so I will attack your overall logic system: that is "your eucldian model is inadequate to understand my non-eucldian universe" -- so to speak. Indeed while what you say about my inability to comprehend, Shankata did not appear to have to resort to using such a "non-euclidian" card, and certainly not as his ONLY card". He was able to argue and win over all opponents of a singular advaitistic view with quite refined linear logic. To him, logical exposition and analysis seemed to be a good thing, a powerful tool for understanding, not a crutch as your propose. > Brahman for me is supremely simple, self-evident, obvious, a priori > (all of this is also a lie of course), and it makes sense to me to > assume that (every)one is in Brahman unless s/he gives evidence of > resisting that. Well, thats a novel approach. I hope it brings value to you. > Tom does not; on the contrary he shows every > evidence of no-self realization. So for me, right now, Tom is in > Brahman, at the very least. So you have an opinion based on a somewhat novel epistomology, with yet to be validated underlying experiential framework. So, to me, your assessment of Tom's state of consciousness is a good as anyone's elses: not relevant or having any special claim to validity. > You are of course welcome to create your > own reality and put him anywhere you like. Unlike you, I am not into labeling and classifying people and things. So I have no need to create anything or put Tom anywhere. But its fascinating that your best counter argument is to say that this is what I am doing. Tom is what he is. I accept that. But all happiness to you in your pursuit of that -- classification and labeling. > Being sliced up by logic > into *unconnected* neat conic-sections "hurts" the primordial heart > of Brahman a little -- you know the thorns around Christ's heart in > those Catholic chapels? -- but I guess we can take it. :-) Per above, if this is the case, I would assume it hurts Brahman when some try to hyper label and classify others as you are doing. Actually that appears to be the same or similar to slicing them by logic. I have little interest in that. So I keep asking the same question to you and Tom: why the strong interest and /or need to label and classify your experiences and those of others? My use of logic in these postes is to help unravel your, IMO. artificial, and unuseful labels and classifications. I can only imagine Brahman feels the healing and growing wholeness, to use your image. And heck, > I think maybe that's what you're actually saying, too. If so, let's > hear it for the indescribable THAT! :-) As you say, I yam what I > yam, sweet potater pie! > > Love, > 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/
