My question though is, if in enlightenment the Knower is 
the "infinite" Self, no longer the "point" ego, which effectively 
gets overridden (apart from its organizing functions), then you are 
left with a Self and a perceiving body. There might well be an 
experience of "Self in all beings/ all beings in Self" but how true 
can that be if it remains exclusively linked to the original "point" 
body and its perceptions? As such it's just like a glorified relative 
ego blessed with blissful oceanic feelings. It would only be a true 
cosmic Self if, moving from infinity to "point", it no longer is 
exclusively linked to the original "point" body, since Self is 
omnipresent, at every point. That would make it less "relative" than 
before, since it would now be linked with an infinity of "points" of 
perception. You mention omniscience.. well if there is only ONE 
Knower anyway... presumably in Unity this happens? Otherwise again it 
would be a "point" hallucinating "infinity", with no "reality" to it.

--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 6/21/05 4:54 AM, claudiouk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Enlightenment is the ability to embody all paradoxical realities.
> > 
> > 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. 
> 
> Sounds like you're alluding to omniscience. I think we can know 
ourSelf as
> the Self in all beings and see all beings in the Self without 
actually
> perceiving through the senses of all beings. That would be a 
relative
> ability, and enlightenment is not defined by relative abilities.
> > 
> > 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.




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/
 


Reply via email to