Akasha: > > > > For example, is the experience of "no I" both a > > necessary and > > sufficent criteria. Is constant foreground PC a > > sufficnet criteria for > > CC? Is absence of anger (per many scriptural > > references) a necessary > > criteria?
Peter: > Of course I am from the no "I" school (now if that > isn't a paradoxical statement). Any trace of "I" would > indicate an "observing" ego and be indicative of > avidya, not realization. Realization is not an > experience. It is not within the domain of either > subjective or objective experience. It is not of the > mind. Ego can have no relationship with consciousness. > > Ego is created as pure consciousness > collapses/projects and identifies with a time and > space bound experience. The discussion becomes > confusing because in avidya there is a confound > between consciousness and ego: people think that ego > is consciousness. It's not. Okay, I'm done for now! Such discussions are of interest. Not for the sake of E or coming to some consensus of views, and not to better seek E. Its interesting to me to understand what people mean when they introduce and use the E term, or talk authoritatively about it. Knowing the profusion of meanings and POVs about E, asking about their views can be a facinating tour on how peoples minds work, how their interpretative frameworks function, etc. And such discussions can stimulate thinking on peripheral insights not so connected to the E topic -- or on specific experiences. As a preface, some assume, incorretly, that when I ask such quesions about E, that I am "seeking E". And based on this presumptions, they focus the discussion on all sorts of unsolicited and off target advice on what I am doing wrong in seeking E. So this preamble is a pre-emptive attempt to help keep the conversation more focussed. So, Peter, this is all in fun. Not that I am taking your views lightly, but its not a challenge to your views or an attempt to discredit them. Rather to understand them and compare and contrast them with other views. To generate common understanding, and clearer terminology. And to spark insights -- which may not be related to the topic but more a result of the exercise itself. ----- To start, please forgive the awkwardness of words, and if possible, lets try to focus on probably intended meanings, not inevitable constraints of english syntax to express this topic. Unless it clarifies or illustrates a good point. To clarify, is your view then that "no-I" is both necessary and sufficient for E? You make the case that it is necessary. So the issue is, is it sufficinet? If so, how do you view PC awareness (PCA)? If "no-I" is sufficent, then logically, PC awareness is not necessary. Or do you hold that the experience (hold the issues about this word until the below point on this topic) or state of "no-I" is the other side of the same coin as PC awareness? That is, do you view PC awareness as a necessary compliment or outcome of "no-I"? Or is it sequential. First "no-I" then PCA? For example SSRS says something to the effect of "empty the glass first, then let it fill with the light of (the divine, PC ...)" Or perhaps do you view PCA as a precursor / cleanser necessary for "no-I" but is not E, by itself. That is, it is not a sufficient criteria for E. " Any trace of "I" would indicate an "observing" ego and be indicative of avidya, not realization. " While your point is understood, I assume you recognize a still remaining social self that interacts with others. Is that so? Some hold the social self is just another entity out there, sort of parallel to other people. Do you share that view? Or have other views? "Realization is not an experience." Semantics and english syntax can be a communications hurddle. Some use the term "experience" to contrast it with "intellectual understanding". Still, experience can imply a subject and object, which is outside the domzin of E as most refer to it. Is that your issue with the term "esperience"? Do you make the same distinction that "experience" attempts to, in distinguishing E from a solely intellectual understanding? In your view, is "state" a better category, while still imperfect, to use for E? "It is not within the domain of either subjective or objective experience." Some describe it as "pure subjectivity", presumably the "pure" designates a distinction from "manifest subjectivity" expressed by the social self. Is this consistent with your understanding, or do you hold that there is not even any "pure subjectivity" in E? "It is not of the mind. Ego can have no relationship with consciousness." Something can exist, yet have no relationship with "something else". For example, a mountian, or a social self can exist wtih no relationship to Pure Consciousness (PC). Could ego have a similar non-relationship with PC? Or do you hold ego must be annhilated for E? Some hold the experience of PC being in background then switching to foreground, and back, similar to the visual forground/background illustrations used in most introductory psychology classes. How does such an experience fit into your spiritual world view? If the ego is annhilalated, does the social self suffer becaude it has no ego structure? If so, how does this mesh with pchycho-analytic theory in which, per my understanding, a strong ego structure (not egoism or egoistic behavior" is necessary for psychological health? Some analysts feel a healthy ego structure is even necessary for anyone starting a spiritual sadhana. What is your view on that? "Ego is created as pure consciousness collapses/projects and identifies with a time and space bound experience." While the world is maintained along with PC in E, why then can't PC be maintained similtaneously with a manifestation of individuality, aka ego, in the social self? "The discussion becomes confusing because in avidya ... " Do you hold that avidya to vidya is a black and white, dichotomous type, on/off transformation. All darkness suddenly becomes all light? " there is a confound between consciousness and ego: people think that ego is consciousness. It's not." Do you mean people with no sadhana experience, or no naturally occuring spiritual transformations? Many experience that the transformation of avidya to vidya is not a black and white event, but a flowering over time. In that transition, many experience long periods of PC, a breaking of the link of identity with the social self, a non-doing, etc. This can happen from the beginning of a sadhana practice. In this transition, for many, ego is clearly seen as distinct from consciousness, at least for sustained periods. Do you still feel that is an unsurmountable "confound" between ego and consciousness in such people? Some scriptures record criteria for E. While I am not claiming that these are authoratative, they can serve as an interesting set of hypotheses to be looked at or potential benchmarks to be examined. Do you feel such scriptures have any value in terms of clarifying the attributes for those experiencing transformation? Did you find any scriptures useful? Some scriptures talk about E in terms of equinimity of the inner person, where anger cannot arise? Is this consistent with your experience? Same with celibacy. Scriptures allude to it occuring at some point in sadhana. SSRS says at some stage it "celibacy happens". Its not a practice. But at some point the energy shifts and sex is no longer a desired practice. But the "joy" of sexual energy is even more intensely experienced, but in higher functions. As I understand it, Amma says a similar thing. Does this correspond to your experience? Some hold that seeking E is counter productive. That it reinforces a longing, a chain of desires, a sense of insufficiency in the present, etc. Was this your experience? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
