The word "conscious-ness" means a state, a quality, a condition or a degree of being conscious.
It is from the Latin prefix "com-/con-" meaning "together with" and the root "scire" meaning "to know". It signifies the pairing between an act of knowing and a known object. CC, GC, UC are just terms that were made up. Shankara only talked about YouSee --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > Hi Share, The identity finally matures enough, to incorporate UC, along with GC and CC and all the other stuff. So you kind of end up back where you started, only understanding and witnessing the dynamics of all seven SOC, this time around. > > Because CC, GC, and UC are completely formed within you, all those simultaneous capabilities; 24/7 silent witness, perception of all relative phenomena, clearly, and the experience that we are in continuous union, are always available. > > Only, of course the sum is greater than its parts. So after all the tapas, sadhana, seeking and searching, the relaxed, invincible personality that you always wanted, and already have when you are feeling really, really good, takes over. > > This can be confusing in the midst of seeking, when even falling in love can be double and triple guessed. MMY's reply about marriage is spot on! Common sense rules. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: > > > > Thanks, Doc, someone asked Maharishi once if a person in Unity could marry anyone. First Maharishi laughed and then to paraphrase, he explained that differences don't disappear in Unity, they simply don't dominate. > > > > When you say from UC the identity will shift, I guess you mean it will shift at the end of UC? > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: "doctordumbass@" doctordumbass@ > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 7:08 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators > > > > > > > > Â > > Hi Share, it is a difference in identity. In UC it is still all about *me* and *you*, and how *I* am so much in union with *you*. > > > > So although fusion is taking place, it is wrt the experience of *me* in Unity. Ego tripping at its best. From UC, the identity will shift. > > > > Make sense? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > > > Rory, I don't understand this at all. I thought that in Unity one is one with all. How could that possible mean being lord of all? Could it not be that people remain in Unity for decades because there is one heck of a lot of integrating going on? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: RoryGoff > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:00 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > Yeah, I don't know, but I am pretty sure I know one or more people who have remained in UC or something similar for decades. There is a pay-off for the ego NOT to go further, for it is at its pinnacle, lord of all it surveys (LOL) and why would it trade cake for death? :-D > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Sure, agreed about the lack of choice, especially since it has already happened. But ten years seems like one heck of a long time to be stuck in UC - Can't even conceive of such a thing; a lack of fundamental integration, for that length of time - unbelievable. > > > > > > > > Yeah, the drain plug gets pulled on all concepts and relative comparisons, eventually. Not because they cannot be made, if necessary, but because they stop making sense, overall, which is different. And since water flows downhill, there is not much sustained thought in that direction, of an identity. Whatever it is, is freer to be whatever suits the moment. > > > > > > > > There is no holding onto, because not only is there no attachment to the object, the subject-object ceases to fuse together into Unity Consciousness. Instead, the subject and the object disappear completely, paradoxically allowing each to be fully experienced, in the moment, encompassing potentially, all and any states of consciousness (SOC). > > > > > > > > Encompassing potentially, all SOC, does not mean that access is theoretically available for anyone. Sure, that, and five bucks, buys you coffee. So, in order to encompass the potential of all SOC, the elimination of the subject-object relationship has to occur. > > > > > > > > After that, it smooths out - lol > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure he had any real choice to do it differently; it seems that I never have. For me, anyhow, Awakening rather destroyed any illusion of free will and real choice I ever had. This is not entirely true, though, of course. > > > > > > > > > > True enough though that for some at least UC is not the pinnacle, and the "next step" often involves abjuring the whole idea of steps, and a pinnacle, and growth, and all of that, in a way. :-) > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Just that by keeping it to himself, and seeing what came next, he could have spared himself a lot of drama, and possibly time. That's all. I am not saying he should have been more contemplative, only that hopefully he has learned now that UC is not the pinnacle of human consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I meant all those comments wrt his UC experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I figured that, but I don't know how they relate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it was going public that fucked him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Going public"?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Possibly would have grown out of it sooner, otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Grown out of it"?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ten years is a damned long time to be stuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Stuck"?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - my assumption is that he stopped TM during that time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, he's never said, so we really do not know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yummy! I haven't eaten lunch yet -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is where Robin Carlson messed up: he thought that he "had > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all" because he had a valid experience of UC, and, at least > > > > > > > > > > > > > by what he has said, he stopped doing TM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Heard an expression a long time ago about dropping acid that serves > > > > > > > > > > > > as a pretty good guide, "Don't peak too soon". Works for seekers, and > > > > > > > > > > > > child actors, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Er, it wouldn't have worked for Robin. He had no choice about when > > > > > > > > > > > to "peak." It was involuntary and completely unexpected, and it > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go away for 10-plus years. (And he's never said exactly > > > > > > > > > > > when he stopped doing TM.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
