Per Jerry Jarvis (his opinion not shared by many Buddhists) although he used the word "Unity": After Unity and dropping the physical body, the purpose of evolution has been fulfilled and there's no further relative existence for subtle bodies since there's no "need". ... This differs from many Buddhist Schools: After E., evolution may continue indefinitely, especially for the purpose of assisting others. The medium for this exchange would be any number of transformation bodies, and the impulse or momentum for ongoing Enlightenment objectives on behalf of all sentient beings would be the will power and energy of the Enlightened Buddha transferred to the subtle bodies. ... The implication - the tree that one hugs (if any) could be the transformation Body of an Enlightened Buddha. ... In any event, these options clearly differ from Jerry's (and insofar as J. was a mouthpiece for MMY, the latter also). ... In other words, Jerry is saying that entities may spend eons attempting to get Enlightened, and once the objective has been attained, there's no more existence. ... Obviously, this scenario differs from Christianity. The Goodfellas: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/8/71192.jpg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > (snip) > > Bahd idea, as Ahnold might say. For many of them, the > > experiences soon faded, and they would have been thought > > of as fools or liars if they *admitted* that they had > > faded, because within the TM org at that time, it was > > *assumed* that if you experienced CC, it was PERMANENT. > > Could this have been one of those "secret teachings" > divulged only to TM teachers? Because it was always my > understanding that one could slip into and out of the > experience of any state of consciousness, although at > some point a particular state supposedly became > permanent. > > After all, "witnessing" is said to be a temporary state > of CC; CC is said to be a permanent state of witnessing. > > I learned TM in 1975; was the concept of witnessing as > a temporary state something that was introduced after > Barry's time but before mine? > > Genuinely curious here. >
