--- In [email protected], "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@...> wrote: > > Dear maskedzebra -....
> Enlightenment is something special -I quote you "(I was) > INCAPABLE of being bested in a one-on-one encounter with > another human being"), "more versatile, more creative, more > attuned, more commanding", "my enlightenment took was > confronting the consciousness of those NOT in Unity > Consciousness—those, that is, who desired to be the > beneficiaries of my superior state of functioning". > Another quote of yours - "Not only did my consciousness rule > the consciousness of the other person. Any attempt by that > other person to pit their consciousness against my own, resulted > in the dramatic demonstration that indeed my consciousness > was dominant, not just dominant in the influence it expressed > in terms of power and integrity and silence, but in the actual > range of creative and intelligent responsiveness. My repertoire > of possible responses to any person, or to any situation, > was virtually unlimited—that is, while in the state of Unity > Consciousness." > Enlightenment doesn't mean now you are more dominant, you > have power, integrity or having a an unlimited repertoire > of responses. I'm with you and your beloved on this one Ravi! I found this first-hand account of UC to be extremely odd indeed. Not that I'm one of the experts here on the ins and outs of states of consciousness. But, and I'm sorry to say this MZ, I found it frankly rather unattractive and distasteful. Congrats are certainly in order for your having freed yourself from this "state of consciousness". I'm inclined to think Rick was quite reasonable in gently questioning whether what MZ thought was UC, WAS UC, (It's a lovely expression that: "I thought I knew"). And call me simple if you like - but in "unity", who would be "besting" who? And, more to the point, why?
