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.