---Yea, but Susan changed her opinion later on in the book. Throughout most of the book (after the account of her Realization); she got suckered into the phoney nihilist neo-Advaita viewpoint: that "nothing" exists, even the self. This is false. What doesn't exist is the false identification involving the true Self, as one component of the self. Other components of the self remain: such as the physical body, mind, relational patterns of behavior (i.e. the social self). Thus, when people say the self is demolished, this is factually incorrect. The self may be vanquished ultimately, but why would one want to do this, since one can use a post-Enlightenement body to help others.? Close to her death, Susan finally owned up to the idea that she had been conned by Neo-Advaita, and realized she was still a "real person"...an individual (minus the component of false identification). The bottom line is that Buddhism is superior to Hinduism in explaining the true nature of maya. The Hindus, led by those phoney Neo-Advaitins like Ramesh Balsekar, go around saying "nothing exists" (yea, ...sure...except their bank accounts!). In Buddhism, one may become Enlightened yet realize that the body, a mind, patterns of behavior...etc; still exist (but are not part of a misidentified ego); and make up the body/mind/personality that remains and who is able to continue "chopping wood and carrying water".
[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." >
