Exactly - the small ego is transcended once CC is stable, and then this newly-permanent sense-of-self, discovered in CC, is first brought to fruition in UC, and again transcended, once a person begins to grow beyond UC. Yes, none of this is static, nor does it conform strictly to the implied linear path. For example, GC is more refinement of perception, than fundamental expansion of consciousness.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : Ego isn't really transcended in CC. All that happens in CC is that the physiological correlates of pure consciousness during TM have become strong enough and consistent enough outside of meditation that a pure "sense of self" is present at all times in all circumstances, whether one is waking, dreaming or sleeping. At this point, one starts to refer to this newly-permanent sense-of-self as one's "real" self, while all the things that people traditionally say are their "self" are less permanent and therefore not "really" their self. There's some degree of stabilization required to get to this point, so one is operating in a less-stressed way, but the only real difference is in the labeling: self vs everything else. And of course, maturation in this state means that the nervous system is becoming more and more stable/stress-free, so there is plenty of opportunity for further growth in terms of behavior and attitude, even without bringing "higher" states of enlightenment into the mix. No-one ever fully matures in even CC, given that we're talking about real physical systems, not some theoretical/philosophical state. And of course, maturation of GC and UC is ongoing forever after first "obtaining" them, as well. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : From what I can tell, UC is the highest state of consciousness, that uses the absolute identity of the Self, as a reference point. That is still a considerable limitation. Once the Self, and the identity are free from one another, then the states of consciousness after UC, come into view. Just as the small ego is transcended by stabilizing CC, the ego of the Self, fully realized in UC, is transcended eventually, too. So, yes, a dude, or dudette, experiencing UC, isn't experiencing full enlightenment - They are still collecting tools, for later use. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : I was dubious of his full enlightenment, and as far as I can tell, what Maharishi said to him isn't "you're fully enlightened," but "your experiences of Unity are valid -please share them." If you look at how he described CC, GC, UC, etc., he couldn't possibly ever declare someone "fully enlightened" or even "permanently" enlightened. And Robin heard him as saying just that, as far as I can tell. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : That was about all you ever said to him, that you were dubious of his enlightenment, to the best of my recollection. Also, Robin had no intention of co-opting Maharishi's teaching, as I've already pointed out here recently (so has Ann, who was with him at MIU), and he did indeed ask for a formal nod from Maharishi as to his enlightenment and the changes he wanted to make to the movement. Maharishi, not surprisingly, refused to give permission, and Robin gave up. Part of the problem with your attitude toward Robin is that you didn't read many of his posts, or didn't read them with attention, so you kept getting the story confused and making up your own. That you would ask him two years ago whether he still meditated is symptomatic. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : I'd have to take a long step back to be sure which swipes you think I've taken, otehr than chalenging Robin's take on his own enlightenment. Of course, I have always held that neither Maharishi nor Gurudev was perfectly enlightened, either, but neither of them decided that they could take other people's students, without any formal nod from the previous teacher, and co-opt what they were being taught. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Of course you take it as a swipe at Robin. As far as I can recall, you've done nothing but swipe at him ever since he got here. He went to the trouble of writing you two long, detailed posts explaining how he viewed the TM-Sidhis, basically saying you were technically correct, but that there were other considerations you weren't taking into account. The posts were kind amd generous; he didn't dump on you. If you wanted to refresh your memory, here are the two posts (the first is quoted in its entirety): https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/311759 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/311759 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : Fair enough. We'd have to ask him to be sure, of course. The fact that he never bothered to learn the TM-Sidhis was quite interesting, especially in-line of Maharishi's comment that they would educate certain people about their own state of enlightenment once they practiced them. I take this to be a swipe at Robin, to be honest. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : You said it was your "impression" that he came to grief 30 years ago because he stopped meditating regularly once he thought he'd become enlightened. I asked where you could have gotten that impression. You responded that he had told you last year (actually two years ago; I checked) that he had stopped meditating. "It's been awhile," he said. What does one have to do with the other? Why would the fact that he hadn't meditated for "awhile" as of two years ago rule out that he stopped meditating at some point after his crackup 30 years ago? As to the irony, it was in what he didn't say: "I'd probably feel really really good [if I meditated now, but considering what ultimately happened to me 30 years ago as a result of meditating and feeling really really good, I would no more start again than fly to the moon. Haven't you read my posts?]." Sort of like asking a heroin addict who had been in recovery for 30 years how it would feel to start using again. Really dumb question. In any case, I don't know when exactly he stopped meditating regularly. I'm just saying it makes no sense for you to assume it was before his crackup (and therefore the cause of it) rather than after (as a result of his crackup). Clear now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : Well, I miss both the irony AND what you are trying to say about what I actually said. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Good grief, Lawson. You just said you thought he fell apart because he had stopped meditating--but that would have been 30 years ago. How on earth does what he told you last year validate that, in your mind? I think this is the weirdest thing I've ever seen you say. Of course he stopped meditating once he decided his enlightenment had been his downfall, after everything had gone flooey for him. What you have no basis for having an "impression" about is that he stopped before then. And just for the record, when he told you he no longer meditated and that he suspected it might make him feel better if he did meditate, he was being gently ironic because it was such an incredibly dumb question for you to ask, given what he'd posted about what he'd been through. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : I asked him specifically if he still meditated, and he said no, and that he suspected that if he did, he might feel better. My impression is that he had stopped meditating well before his epiphany that Hindu stuff was Bad, Very Bad™ because he believed he no longer needed to. I might be wrong, of course. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : I have no idea where you got the idea that Robin stopped meditating regularly before things fell apart. That's a conjecture with no basis in anything he or anybody else ever said. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote : I personally think that Robin went over teh edge as soon as he stopped meditating regularly. Why? Because Maharishi said over and over again, that the time when enlightenment dawns is the time of greatest unstressing and the time when regularity of practice is most vital. Robin apparently ignored that part of MMY's teachign completely: the more enlightened he considered himself, the less he bothered to meditate, or such is my impression. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Robin himself acknowledges he went over the edge toward the end of his decade of purported enlightenment. Whether he was "more than a bit unbalanced" up to that point is a different question, one that "most people" aren't in a position to know. (Some people on FFL think you're more than a bit unbalanced, after all.) In his heyday, Robin had a lot of appeal, as Ann points out. Did you read the file I cited? I should think you'd find it of interest, given what he says about the TMO in that Ledger ad. You're always looking for data, and as I said, he agreed with your view of the TMO in many respects.
