Don't think so. He refers to both as Union; and I can't imagine he'd be saying it's OK to stop at GC and not go on to UC.
<< Judy, thank you so much for posting this quote. As for what Maharishi meant by "at its own level," I wonder if he was talking about the difference bt GC and UC. But like he said, it's a sin against God to raise differences over the principle of union! >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:14 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Good lord, no. Huge topic. Do some reading. It occurs to me that you may be unclear on what "ontological" means in this context. That's another huge topic. You need to do your own homework on this. Actually, Maharishi had something to say along these lines: "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God. They are man's guides on earth, furthering the evolution of all creation. They are above the limitations of religion or race. Whether they play with God or hold Him as one with their own Being is a point to be settled between them and God. "They live as devotees of God or they become united, become one with their Beloved--it is a matter between them. Let it be decided on that level of Union. One view need not exclude the other. It is a sin against God to raise differences over the principle of Union. Let the followers of both schools of thought aspire to achieve their respective goals and then find in that consciousness that the other standpoint is also right at its own level." --Commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32 "Hold Him as one with their own Being" is ontological Union. "Play with God" maintains the ontological distinction between the human being and God, but it's also a state of Union, according to Maharishi. I think he had primarily in mind the different schools of Indian religious philosophy, but it seems to me that "play with God" would not be objectionable to the Judeo-Christian traditions (the word "play" would raise hackles, but I'm talking about the concept). I suspect "at its own level" subtly implies that Maharishi thought ontological Union was on a "higher" level than mere devotional Union. << Judy, can you say in a nutshell what other kind of union with God there is, besides ontological? >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:11 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: You have to look carefully at the notion of "union with God" to know whether the phrase embraces ontological union. For the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, that's a bridge too far, but the distinction can be subtle until you get really deep into the theology and examine the question very specifically. I doubt Sufism crosses that bridge, and I'm quite sure Kabbalah does not. Any sect that asserted the possibility of ontological union would be distinctly heretical with regard to the established doctrine of the "mother" religion. << I think all of these systems have sects, for example the Sufis in Islam, that believe that there can be union between God and human. Maybe also the Kabbalists in Judaism? >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:22 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: You aren't disagreeing just with Robin, but with all of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for which the notion of ontological union with God is blatantly heretical. You're entitled to your opinion that they're all wrong about that. << Judy, this "general impossibility" is where I disagree with Robin. As I say in the rest of my post. I think, based on my reading of what people have written, I think ontological union with God or life has occurred in some individuals. I realized this morning that in the context of this discussion and for me, it doesn't matter whether Robin calls his previous state enlightenment or delusion or both. What matters is that I think, based on what I've read and heard about others who followed an Eastern system, for example, Nisargadatta, that enlightenment, etc. has occurred. >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:54 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Robin was talking about the enlightenment Maharishi describes. Don't know what he'd say about other types of "very, very high states of human development," except for the general impossibility of ontological union with God (per the doctrines of the Judeo-Christian religions). << I think enlightenment, or a very, very high state of human development, and without delusion or possession, has occurred in Native Americans, shamans, tantrics, Taoists, Buddhists, Sufis, Christians, Jews and atheists. I think it included "ontological union" with what some people call God, but which I think could also be called life. I think it has occurred in people like Byron Katie and Eckhart Tolle who had no spiritual tradition at all. Finally I think it has occurred in some people who followed an Eastern tradition. I think it did not include delusion or possession. I think it lasted. I think it included ontological union with God or, for the atheists, life. Now for the scientists: I think if we wired such individuals up to an fMRI machine, I think we would find that 99% of their brain was functioning in a very, very healthy way. This is what I've been attempting to say these last few days. And yes, I recognize that it's been gripping me! Why? To honor the possibility and actuality of a very, very high state of human development. >>
