Billy wrote: > > If it's like nothing you haven't experienced it!! > > Pure bliss is not *nothing*..... > > jstein wrote: > We've already been through this, BillyG. I'm going > to explain one more time how I understand MMY's > teaching, and that'll be it; I'm not going to argue > with you about it: > However, in a previous post you did seem equate Brahman with 'nothing', by using a quasi-Nagarjuna syllogism. But according to Shankara, Brahman is is not a 'nothing', but is Sat-Chit-Ananda, three fundamental attributes: Being, Conciousness, and Bliss. In Vedanta, Brahman is regarded as the source and essence of the material universe. Maharishi teaches that the experience of absolute bliss conciousnerss, satchitananda, is the result of experiencing Transcendental Conciousness. The goal of Maharishi's TM is to reside perpetually within saccidananda, a state which Maharishi refers to as samadhi. Now, that's it - I'm not goping to argue with you about it. Maharishi's teaching has now been established by Billy, a TM Governor, who probably knows more about it than you do, since you've obviously been reading to much Ken Wilber. We've been over this before and you failed to respond to my objection to you eqauting Brahman with nothing by incorrectly misappripriating Nagarjuna's 'Four Negations'.
> If you're aware *of* bliss as a "something," as > blissfulness, that isn't no thoughts/no mantra, > by definition. > > You may recall that MMY has said, "Bliss is not > blissFUL." To experience blissfulness, one must > have awareness *of* it, as a "something." > > Transcendental consciousness-by-itself (samadhi) > is *pure* bliss, as opposed to blissFULness. There > is no subject/object distinction present in TC-by- > itself, so no way to be aware *of* blissfulness. > > That doesn't mean one doesn't experience > blissfulness before and/or after TC-by-itself. But > in TC-by-itself, one *is* bliss. There is no "me" > to say, "I am blissful." That happens only after > TC-by-itself has ended and the subject/object > distinction has returned. > > Pure bliss is utterly abstract, not something > one is aware *of*. It is awareness itself, > awareness without an object, pure Subject, > pure Self, pure Being, no-*thingness*. > > Pure bliss is the absence of thingness, of > distinctions, of awareness *of*. That's what > I meant by "It's like nothing" (no-thing) above. > > If one experiences waking-state awareness along > with pure consciousness, one may experience > blissFULness, but that isn't TC-by-itself. > Waking-state awareness is not present during > TC-by-itself. The capacity to experience > blissfulness is not operative in TC-by-itself. > "(Pure) bliss is not blissFUL." > > BlissFULness occurs only when one is able to > sustain some waking-state awareness *along with* > pure consciousness, after repeated cycles of > TC-by-itself alternating with waking state (the > yellow cloth analogy). This is a more "advanced" > state than TC-by-itself, i.e., cosmic > consciousness, or "witnessing" if it's temporary. > > So if you're experiencing blissFULness, that's > terrific. But it isn't samadhi (TC-by-itself), > no thoughts/no mantra, as MMY defines it. > You've gone *past* that stage and have begun > to integrate pure Being with waking state. You > may still experience samadhi (TC-by-itself) in > meditation, but you experience blissFULness > only after you come out of TC-by-itself, when > you're experiencing waking-state and pure Being > together. > > If you want to define samadhi differently than > MMY does, fine, but you can't tell people who > are going by MMY's definition that they aren't > experiencing samadhi, as MMY defines it, on the > basis that it doesn't involve blissfulness. > That's just not how he uses the terms. > > "Bliss is not blissFUL." > Non sequitur.
