Maybe this has come up before in FFL, but if upon enlightenment there is consciousness (transcendental) and relative experience, and the consciousness is infinite value and experience point value, I find it odd that the two remain correlated via the ONE body.
Take an actor having overall awareness (infinite value) and he acts three characters in a play (point value). Speaking as each character in turn he operates within the limitations their respective "egos" - but as the only "reality" the actor knows exactly what these egos perceive and can or cannot say or do. Whereas, returning to Consciousness, in the case of someone claiming enlightenment, there seems to be only knowledge of the one body and ego that existed prior to enlightenment. Is such enlightenment still "relative" then, and is there another more profound level to reach in which truly one would experience everything as the Self, this Self being truly INTIMATELY cognissant of the egos and bodies of ALL creatures? Because only THEN it becomes possible to love one's neighbour as one's Self AND have the sense that a wrong done to another is truly a wrong done to one's "self" as well. In other words, stage 1 enlightenment is the expansion of point to infinity; stage 2, the linking back of infinity to ALL relative points, enabling the original point to "know" all other points intimately, directly.. Does this tally with any scripture, I wonder. --- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Irmeli: > > On the experiential level I feel to be all the time connected to the > > infinite. But I don't have much else to say about it than it is > > transcendental to my understanding. > > > > > Llundrub:-You're not connected to it. It is you. Without it you would > have nothing to make connections with. > > Irmeli: My relative mind is an expression of the absolute. It is not > the absolute. > > > Everything I perceive through this nervous system is relative. And > > that is very fascinating. In my relative perception the highest > > possible stage of consciousness I can be aware of is deep ignorance in > > comparison to something much higher I cannot even imagine. > > > llundrub:---That is mere ignorance. The awareness would be the same > regardless of whether it was more or less aware of ignorance. It > doesn't change. Consciousness is clarity, or there would be no > relative change because there would be no space for it. > > Irmeli: With this I disagree. It is theoretical nonsense. How much and > what what the organizing "I" is aware of makes a lot of difference to > how I navigate through my life. Compare yourself with a amoeba. There > is lot of differences in awareness and accordingly also in lifestyle. > > > Irmeli: In the relative world everything is in relation to everything > else. > > But in order to perceive this relativity you must perceive something > > as other, as an object. > > > Llundrub:--Yes, in order to get the co-dependency of relative > phenomenon one must see their nature as being empty of the phenomena > or else one would be caught up in it and not see the forest for the trees. > > Irmeli:The relative is phenomena,not empty. But it is crucial to > disidentify the Self from the changing phenomenal world and perceive > it grounded in the infinity or absolute. > > > Irmeli:> A baby for whom everything is still subject lives in an > > undifferentiated unity, there are no relations to anything, only > oneness. > > In order to be capable to relate to something, it has to get separated > > from the embeddedness in the "I". When something is still in the "I", > > you cannot clearly perceive that function or work with it, instead it > > runs you. > > > LLundrub:---The mere modern Jungian psychotherapy of individuation. > Life however doesn't mean that one will always be at odds. This > somehow is the key to being able to work through it though Irmeli. > One must be able to abstract the basic nature of relative phenomenon > in order to adjust to it. One needed live in the babyish instant > desire fulfillment or tears sort of psycho-noumena, but instead, if > one understands the harsh reality of the relative then one can build a > nest, as it were, in that tree and find shelter in it. > > Irmeli: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. English being > my third language, I would appreciate clear and simple expressions. 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/
