--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > Peter wrote: > > > --- sparaig <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> --- In [email protected], Peter > > >> <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Great description of pure CC. Watch how everyone > > >>> > > >> is > > >> > > >>> going to jump all over your post of her writings > > >>> > > >> and > > >> > > >>> dismiss it because it won't fit their waking state > > >>> concept of CC. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> Who can say who is enlightened? > > >> > > >> However, my own OPINION is that people can mistake > > >> pathological witnessing for CC and visa > > >> versa. > > >> > > > > > > How would you define pathological witnessing? I assume > > > you mean the experience of derealization. The > > > difference between the two is that in derealization > > > there is a "me" that is experienced as disconnected > > > and distant from experiencing: "I seem to be a million > > > miles away." But in CC there is no self or "me" that > > > is localized to be either far away or close. > > > > > > > > How would you function if you cannot localize enough to deal with > paying > > your bills or driving a car? > > > From the Susan Seagal book: "Buddhism, she found, explained this by > describing the skandhas or 'aggregates' as personality functions > which remain when one is empty of the person or the 'me'. The five > skandhas include form, feelings, perceptions, thoughts and > consciousness. Their interaction creates the illusion of self." >
So, these no longer interact? Or does one or more cease to exist ufficiently that the rest can't integrate into a "self?' No aspect of a person goes away in CC, according to theory, research and my own experience. There is simply a constant that becomes identified as "Self" because the rest are ephemeral while It is not.
