yeah, that is what I call silence, or bliss, I don't know what else to call it 
- it has a lot of attributes, and you use a great word for it - familiarity. 
That being the case, knowledge automatically follows attention; there are no 
boundaries to formally navigate, between subject and object, so everything is 
known, according to its interest (aka level of charm), vs. any sort of 
difficulty in gaining knowledge about an object, the old style model. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Fleetwood, I had an experience of Unity once. But it wasn't so much about 
silence. It was so subtly about familiarity. Everything I was perceiving seemed 
so familiar to me. Not because it was known in the usual sense. But because it 
was as familiar to me as I am to myself. Very very subtle, yet unmistakeable.
 
 


 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:56 AM, "fleetwood_macncheese@... 
[FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 

   Yep. I was curious about that when he said it, as I wasn't sure what sort of 
perceptual change would occur, perhaps even through the senses. It is actually 
the introduction of an ever deepening and abiding silence, inside and out, 
which unifies all the diversity, and even softens any negative expressions, or 
perceptions. Very subtle, yet unmistakable. The overall perception, unified by 
this bliss, is then always of oneness, though not to the extent that one's 
normal likes and dislikes are perverted at all. Life with dark and light 
continues, but everything is dominated and saturated by oneness. 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Lawson, there's a wonderful tape in which someone asks Maharishi if in Unity a 
person could marry anyone. Maharishi laughs and then explains that differences 
don't disappear in Unity. It's just that they no longer dominate awareness.
 
 


 On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:43 PM, "LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife]" 
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 

   So you're saying that an enlightened person loses the ability to 
descriminate between a flower and a duck?
 

 Or loses the ability to name things because they see the fundamental unity in 
the diversity?
 

 

 L

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <LEnglish5@...> wrote :

 The way Maharishi explained the "illusion of Maya" is rather different than 
what a lot of people understand. 

 Consciousness is not an illusion, nor is what most people call "reality."
 

 The illusion is that there is a fundamental difference between them.
 

 

 This is the "veil of maya": a thin, non-existent membrane that separates the 
two which is merely an artifact of our perception of things based on having a 
nervous system. Full enlightenment is when you can full see on both sides of 
that non-existent veil.
 

 I'll go along with that, except for the bit about seeing everything on both 
sides after enlightenment. 
 

 

 L
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <inmadison@...> wrote :

 This may be above my pay-grade, but if one is a transcendentalist/idealist, 
then belief in classic cause and effect is incompatible with that belief . . . 
or one has to significantly qualify what is meant by cause and effect.   Many 
folks who refer to them selves as transcendentalists/idealists are actually 
dualists, or simply rebranded materialists (I am not suggesting you are)

Regarding the 'illusion' - when you pick up an object, like an apple for 
example, what does your experience tell you?    When I pick up an apple, I see 
it's color and shape, I feel the texture and if pressed with a fingernail - I 
can sense the sticky juice, I taste the tart sweetness . . . and I remember 
apple pies and so forth.  My experience of the apple is passionate and lively - 
Where is the illusion?  Toss in more awareness and all you get is more passion 
- there is no illusion.  'Illusion' is just India of old - we don't need no 
stinking illusion in the 21st century.







 


 













 


 










Reply via email to