---great!...and there are stages of evolution beyond Enlightenment; to begin with, some form of physical perfection then evolving toward the attainment of a Glorified body. Of course, such evolutionary developments are "relative", but nevertheless possibly where humanity is headed. Neo-Advaitins typically downplay such progressions. Vaj called the attainment of a Glorified Rainbow Light Body an "epiphenomenon". Of course, all of this is speculative anyway; but the notion that Enlightenment is some type of "pinnacle" seems counterintuitive. A phase-transition would probably be a more appropriate phrase. But even then, everything has to be placed into the context of what people want, what makes them happy, and where they believe lies the source of happiness.
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > in order to attempt an understanding of enlightenment, the waking > state mind conceptualizes enlightenment as an object, with > conventional attributes and boundaries. but enlightenment is > unbounded by its very definition, without attributes and boundaries. > > so when the identification of the mind itself changes from bound to > an entity that constantly grows and expands, and continues to > expand, that is the change of the mind that occurs with > enlightenment. anything the waking state mind attempts to latch > onto, and think, "yes, THAT is enlightenment" will necessarily be > incorrect. > > enlightenment is a process, beginning with a fundamental change in > identification, from self to Self. that is why there are three > distinct stages of enlightenment in the TM lexiccn, and many many > more stages beyond that. to think incorrectly of waking state > morphing into another bound atate, the state of enlightenment, is a > mental trick with no value. > > the first establishment of enlightenment, CC, is just the beginning, > and neither that, nor any other state of enlightenment that ripens > subsequently, can be conceptualized by the waking state mind. > > conceptualization needs at least two values, both fixed. so if a > person from waking state, a fixed value, attempts to conceptualize a > second, elightened state, which is not fixed but ever expanding, > there is no way to compare the two, no way to bridge the apparent > distance between the fixed and the not fixed, by thinking. it is > like trying to mathematically compute all of the numbers between one > and infinity. impossible. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <inmadison@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let me jump into this attachment discussion. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is > until you > > > > experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any > attempt to > > > > become unattached through the mind is pure mood- > making/manipulation > > > > which is worthless. Most people disengage/unattach from > aspects of > > > > their relative existence out of neurotic fear, not out of a > desire for > > > > realization. They want to free themselves from the discomfort > of the > > > > mind's attachment so they disengage. But this is a mistake. > Even in > > > > enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when dealing with > > > > relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is pure > > > > conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to > realization > > > > pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself > > > > (primarily the mind, secondarily the body) and an ego is > created. So > > > > pure awareness experiences itself as limited. > > > > > > > > > > > > So why would PC, which is eternally free and unbounded, the > substratum > > > > of the gods, the Being of the universe, experience itself as > limited? > > > > Exactly when did this delusion of Pure Consciousness begin? > > > > > > Ultimately, this is a question for the philosophers of the > group - but > > > experientially, this is what Maharishi referred to as the > > > 'naturalness' of waking state, or the 'naturalness' of CC or the > > > 'naturalness' of any state of consciousness - - it is > accompanied by a > > > sense of This is how I have always lived, or This is what it > means to > > > be a human being, etc Completely natural means there is not a > sense > > > of: I used to be or experience such and such, but now I > experience or > > > am such and such. It is completely seamless. > > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > I understand that some may say things such as "pure consciousness > > identifies with something other than itself and pure awareness > > experiences itself as limited" in a poetic sense, and/or as from > the > > perspective of the (illusion of an) ego in order to paint a picture > > for an ego-driven waking state perspective. > > > > However to state, and to hold that literally, that Pure > Consciousness > > morphs into a limited state, and gets confused and identifies with > the > > mind or objects of the senses indicates that this type of "Pure > > Consciousness" is a very weak -- and unworthy, bound state of > > consciousness, IMO. The experience of this very weak sibling of > ever > > constant unchanging actual Pure Consciousness -- even when this > weak > > sibling "gets strong" and not so confused -- appears a trivial > > attainment. > > >
