Tom,
As is often the case, Rory feels the need to interject off the point comments, diversions, apparently to branch discussion away from the point at hand. As I understand it from your prior words below, you indicated that you felt the TMO has misled you regarding its use of terms about higher states. See below. Tom T said: [brackets added to indicate references perhaps obsured by editing] "I didn't say you did anything wrong I was writing and talking from the knowledge handed down by the TMO. Not being the scholars that Akasha and Vaj are I was using what was given [r\from the TMO]. As I said before they [TMO] probably didn't get it right and again maybe the weakness is in this non-scholarly person. My recollection is that Patanajali was presented as .... [discusses what He remembers learning form TMO] Who am I to know that I was wrong until I run into a Vaj or an Akasha who are great scholars. ... [I] hope again that you both realize that being ignorant is no excuse but to have been misled by the TMO does us all a disservice." I responded that what I had said about CC was consistent with what I have heard MMY say about it extensively, starting ovr 37 years ago. That you have misuderstood TMO definitions, well, thats not a high crime. But its unfair to blame the TMO -- they have been pretty clear about it. What occurs to me is that part of the problem is the highjacking by some of terms the TMO uses -- and the creation of their own esoteric book cut-and-paste mythology about these TMO-sude terms. While anyone can conceptualize whatever they want, what is disturbing and ethically unsound is for them not to clarify that they are using the same terms that the listener strongly associates with a particular school of thought, but with quite different meanings and with quirky personal mythologies wrapped around the terms. While in most cases, no one owns terms, it is a tactic of bait-and-switch to use TMO terms with alternative definitions, in a TMO forum, when the listeners have a particular well-known meaning in their heads associated with the term. When a user makes up their own meanings for common TMO terms in a forum like this -- without distinctly clarify that they are using the term differenly is odd at best. Unless of course the intent is to deceive. Then the reasoning is clear. It appears to me, and even from your own words, that some of your incorrect misunderstandings of what the TMO has said about various states of consciousness is that you have inadvertently blurred the understanding of terms the TMO uses and defines in particular ways with things you have heard Rory has said about the same terms -- but with all of his added esoteric IMO gobblygook and handwaving. And it appears that you have let that quite different set of odd mythologies, to get jumbled up with TMO knowledge. Regardless, my primary point, as always, is that there is far too much emphasis on labeling and clasifying people and experiences. And this is just the sort of jumbled mess that often results when the majority of attention is put on such systems and classifications. --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a good > > sense of what MMY has said about CC and higher states. > > > > You will not find him talking about CC being "a small self witnessing > > things" as you have indicated is your understanding. > > Akasha, > > This is how C.C. looks from the point of view of Brahman, NOT from its > own point of view. From its own point of view, there is the Absolute, > and the Relative, completely separate (again, using the Purusha- > Prakriti model, C.C. is Purusha/Absolute activating Avyakta/Unmanifest > in Cosmic brow, and Prakriti/Relative activating karmendriyas/organs > of action in Base), so we get Absolute and Relative together but at > completely opposite poles. Absolute is the uninvolved "Witness" of the > automatic activity of the Relative. > > However, there is also, as yet unsuspected by the person enjoying C.C., > (among other elements) the Ahamkara, our personal Brahma or > Causal/Solar Body or Soul or storyteller, intermediating between the > Absolute and the Relative. This is the personal ego or "I AM" who > still binds the rest of the sheaths by time and space, denying the > immediacy of Wholeness or merged Absolute/Relative or "Absolativity" > by placing conditions upon it. So long as we are unaware of the true > nature of this personal Brahma or Golden Child, we project it onto the > external authority of God/Christ/Guru/Shankara/whomever. This Ahamkara > remains even into U.C., though by then the Purusha/Absolute has moved > down through the bliss-sheath and wisdom-sheath to touch it from > above, and the Prakriti/Relative has moved up through the senses and > lower mind to touch it from below. We then merge with that Solar > Angel, but probably don't yet think to apply that experience of NOW to > all of Life. We're still conditioning the Wholeness with at least some > of our habitual stories and projections and expectations. > > It is not until one is willing to stand completely in the utter naked > perfection of one's own Truth NOW, completely unattached to all > external authority and all space-time phenomena (and that includes all > states of consciousness) yet embracing it all, that the > Brahma/Personal Ahamkara/Causal Body/Guru/storyteller is seen for the > non-existent "man behind the curtain," the small self, and the "Great > Immensity" of emptiful paradox or Brahman or Wholeness or Absolativity > is directly Understood as our own Soul -- the World Soul. NOW the C.C. > witnesser is seen as having been a small self, by comparison to the > Wholeness which has taken its place. > > I hesitated to write again of this, because I suspect this may add yet > another layer of glamorizing and conceptualizing and concretizing and > projection over the simple immediacy of NOW. But it seemed to be a > problem for you, and so what can we do? We do our best. Hope it helps. > > Love, > Rory 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/
