[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
My question though is, if in enlightenment the Knower is the infinite Self, no longer the point ego, which effectively gets overridden (apart from its organizing functions), then you are left with a Self and a perceiving body. There might well be an experience of Self in all beings/ all beings in Self but how true can that be if it remains exclusively linked to the original point body and its perceptions? As such it's just like a glorified relative ego blessed with blissful oceanic feelings. It would only be a true cosmic Self if, moving from infinity to point, it no longer is exclusively linked to the original point body, since Self is omnipresent, at every point. That would make it less relative than before, since it would now be linked with an infinity of points of perception. You mention omniscience.. well if there is only ONE Knower anyway... presumably in Unity this happens? Otherwise again it would be a point hallucinating infinity, with no reality to it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/21/05 4:54 AM, claudiouk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe this has come up before in FFL, but if upon enlightenment there is consciousness (transcendental) and relative experience, and the consciousness is infinite value and experience point value, I find it odd that the two remain correlated via the ONE body. Enlightenment is the ability to embody all paradoxical realities. Take an actor having overall awareness (infinite value) and he acts three characters in a play (point value). Speaking as each character in turn he operates within the limitations their respective egos - but as the only reality the actor knows exactly what these egos perceive and can or cannot say or do. Whereas, returning to Consciousness, in the case of someone claiming enlightenment, there seems to be only knowledge of the one body and ego that existed prior to enlightenment. Is such enlightenment still relative then, and is there another more profound level to reach in which truly one would experience everything as the Self, this Self being truly INTIMATELY cognissant of the egos and bodies of ALL creatures? Because only THEN it becomes possible to love one's neighbour as one's Self AND have the sense that a wrong done to another is truly a wrong done to one's self as well. Sounds like you're alluding to omniscience. I think we can know ourSelf as the Self in all beings and see all beings in the Self without actually perceiving through the senses of all beings. That would be a relative ability, and enlightenment is not defined by relative abilities. In other words, stage 1 enlightenment is the expansion of point to infinity; stage 2, the linking back of infinity to ALL relative points, enabling the original point to know all other points intimately, directly.. Does this tally with any scripture, I wonder. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
I cannot understand how this kind of theoretical, intellectual speculation can help a person to evolve. If we knew how higher stages of consciousness than ours are, that knowing would be inevitably wrong, only a different way to organize our present stage of consciousness outwardly. With your present eyes, you just cannot see how the world looks like, when seen with much more accurate eyes that can perceive dimensions, your eyes cannot. We cannot adopt a higher stage of consciousness than ours that way, we can only imitate it. And that imitation can even become a hindrance for further growth. We evolve best by uncovering the limitations and illusions of the perceptions our present stage creates. If the process of imitating takes up most of your attention, very little attention is left to uncovering the contradictions of our present stage. Often the hypocrisy that goes with imitation forms a safe hiding place for rigid and false thought forms. On the other hand we can for moments get peak experiences, experience glimpses of higher stages and that can be of help in uncovering the illusions that are hidden in our present stage. At least I have personally not been interested in higher stages. If you have a rigid preconceived idea, you are less open for the unexpected, which a new stage will be. Every thought and every experience regardless of how pure, subtle and transcendental it feels, when perceived in and through a physical body and nervous system, is always in the relative. We can only talk about the absolute, we cannot experience it. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question though is, if in enlightenment the Knower is the infinite Self, no longer the point ego, which effectively gets overridden (apart from its organizing functions), then you are left with a Self and a perceiving body. There might well be an experience of Self in all beings/ all beings in Self but how true can that be if it remains exclusively linked to the original point body and its perceptions? As such it's just like a glorified relative ego blessed with blissful oceanic feelings. It would only be a true cosmic Self if, moving from infinity to point, it no longer is exclusively linked to the original point body, since Self is omnipresent, at every point. That would make it less relative than before, since it would now be linked with an infinity of points of perception. You mention omniscience.. well if there is only ONE Knower anyway... presumably in Unity this happens? Otherwise again it would be a point hallucinating infinity, with no reality to it. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cannot understand how this kind of theoretical, intellectual speculation can help a person to evolve. why speculation ? No. Jnana has it's own value. yes? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cannot understand how this kind of theoretical, intellectual speculation can help a person to evolve. why speculation ? No. Jnana has it's own value. yes? I don't know what 'jnana'means. Of course intellectual theory building and has its proper place and use. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cannot understand how this kind of theoretical, intellectual speculation can help a person to evolve. why speculation ? No. Jnana has it's own value. yes? I love the descriptions Irmeli has given of her own awareness, and they have tickled me to pay more attention to sound/vibration myself, bringing that angle more into conscious enjoyment in this bodymind, to excellent effect. (Whereas this bodymind's habitual sense-channels have tended to emphasize feeling/touch and sight.) Perhaps sharing different angles and (ap)perceptions can often help us to recognize more consciously the enlightenment that has been here all along -- as long (as Irmeli cautions) as we do not deny our own innate focus and gifts in favor of some conceptual idea we might have of another's gifts or enlightenment-criteria. Claudio's questions seem (to me at least) to show that he is seeing through the old absolute/relative dichotomy, and finding that Brahman or Wholeness resides AS fully in the manifest, relative point as in the unmanifest, absolute Ocean. No difference. A natural progression from this would seem to be the realization that one's Wholeness is potentially as free to be ANY point-self as to be one's habitual point-self: what I would (habitually) call Krishna Consciousness. Again, just a matter of putting a bit of attention on what has been here all along. :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love the descriptions Irmeli has given of her own awareness, and they have tickled me to pay more attention to sound/vibration myself, bringing that angle more into conscious enjoyment in this bodymind, to excellent effect. (Whereas this bodymind's habitual sense-channels have tended to emphasize feeling/touch and sight.) Perhaps sharing different angles and (ap)perceptions can often help us to recognize more consciously the enlightenment that has been here all along -- as long (as Irmeli cautions) as we do not deny our own innate focus and gifts in favor of some conceptual idea we might have of another's gifts or enlightenment-criteria. The funny thing is that while I'm inwardly attentive to vibrations and sound, outwardly the case is the opposite. I have some difficulties to attentively follow speech. While studying I often felt I couldn't follow the lecturer and understood very little of the lecture. When I got home and had a look at my notes, I could often easily grasp everything. I'm an engineer and have been quite good in solving complicated problems, but only when they are drawn and written on the paper. If somebody tries to explain the problem to me by speaking, I have difficulties in understanding and solving it. So outwardly I'm much more visual. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
comments below please --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question though is, if in enlightenment the Knower is the infinite Self, no longer the point ego, which effectively gets overridden (apart from its organizing functions), then you are left with a Self and a perceiving body. There might well be an experience of Self in all beings/ all beings in Self but how true can that be if it remains exclusively linked to the original point body and its perceptions? It isn't exclusively linked to anything. The Self is distinctly free from any sense of personal identification. It is perceived by the original 'point' body, but is not actually connected to it. It, the Self, exists by its Self. This has been my experience when I still my mind. All thoughts go away, and yet I can still perceive something else, pure consciousness, the Self. It is odd because it feels like me, but try as I might I can't locate the attachment point, through thought or the senses. Sometimes I will even imagine being attached to It just to satisfy some remnant of ego or habit, though when I focus on it, there is truly no attachment. It is like pressing on foam to leave an impression, and no matter how hard I press, there is no impression left. snip It would only be a true cosmic Self if, moving from infinity to point, it no longer is exclusively linked to the original point body, since Self is omnipresent, at every point. That would make it less relative than before, since it would now be linked with an infinity of points of perception. Exactly. Though I am unsure about the next step- how the perception of the Self begins to extend to everything else 'out there'. Conceptually, yes, but experientially, not yet constant. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
You raise some good questions. If you wish to then read in, otherwise just consider this another waste of my time. - Original Message - From: claudiouk To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative My question though is, if in enlightenment the Knower is the "infinite" Self, no longer the "point" ego, which effectively gets overridden (apart from its organizing functions), then you are left with a Self and a perceiving body. There might well be an experience of "Self in all beings/ all beings in Self" but how true can that be if it remains exclusively linked to the original "point" body and its perceptions? -This is the problem, identifying with the body as if it's a point. The body is infinite. The self is absolute, not infinite. A point of identification is the absolute identifying with some snapshot of the infinite. There are no points. There are merely snapshots. As soon as the camera eye of the absolute has finished with its picture the scene has changed. How mant times does your pet, or baby do something cute, and you yell for the wife, and then she comes running, and the pet, or baby won't do it again? Snapshot, snapshot, snapshot, snapshot. And then we get hung up on the better pitcures of yesterday when our hair blew just right, and Kali didn't appear so lustful in our own eyes. All beings are linked, even in the snapshot. Didn't you see the dolphin in the ocean behind the subject, and the water sprites in the cloud dipping their heads into the underside of the gray foam of their world. What about the baby which raised it's hand too the twinkling sunlight refracted of your lens. As such it's just like a glorified relative ego blessed with blissful oceanic feelings. -Except that unlike the horny housewife who is identifying with herwet snatch (whoas been having a midlife crises for the last ten years), and the postman-as-divinely-handy-tool, (Thank you Jesus), except that, the enlightened aren't really identifying with their vagina, wet or dry, no, they are a circumference without any point for fastening upon. And so also, when the postman turnes them down, or they are to shy to invite him in, they release the horns, and don't treat their husbands like shit when they get home. Or they refasten the horns and work their man over, to his surprise. You see the enlightened is not afraid to try something new, since they aren't just a snapshot. Snapshot. The enlightened wife has a lucky husband who comes home to the field of all possibilities. It would only be a true cosmic Self if, moving from infinity to "point", it no longer is exclusively linked to the original "point" body, The problem is using TM-speak which is relative, and based not upon the Sanskrit basis for the philosophy but is based in the English or other language and is the interpretation of an interpretation. In Tibetan they have five words for thought, five for mind, and so on The body is an amazing thing. Really amazing. Think how flexible and beautiful it is. And what is it? It's billions of individual cells. When you are speaking of a point body, what's your point? Which point? And even in that point are more points. Iin the cell is an atom of particles, and smaller points beyond. What one finds is the self same field of the absolute, and no points, no motion, nothing being created, or dying. Nothing but an absolute. That's is. Snap. Snap. since Self is omnipresent, at every point. That would make it less "relative" than before, since it would now be linked with an infinity of "points" of perception. You mention omniscience.. well if there is only ONE Knower anyway... presumably in Unity this happens? Otherwise again it would be a "point" hallucinating "infinity", with no "reality" to it. Snapshot. A better question is why am I happy sometimes but not at others? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
On Jun 22, 2005, at 11:35 AM, jim_flanegin wrote: It is perceived by the original 'point' body, but is not actually connected to it. It, the Self, exists by its Self. This has been my experience when I still my mind. All thoughts go away, and yet I can still perceive something else, pure consciousness, the Self. It is odd because it feels like me, but try as I might I can't locate the attachment point, through thought or the senses. How do you *know* that this is not one moment of consciousness recalling the experience of the immediately preceding moment of consciousness, which, in turn, may recall its immediately preceding moment—each moment having no other appearances or objects arising to it. Thus, due to the homogeneity of this mental continuum, with each moment of consciousness recalling the previous moment of consciousness, the experiential effect is that of consciousness apprehending itself? In other words consciousness perceiving pure consciousness is just a trained illusion or expectation. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you *know* that this is not one moment of consciousness recalling the experience of the immediately preceding moment of consciousness, which, in turn, may recall its immediately preceding moment—each moment having no other appearances or objects arising to it. Thus, due to the homogeneity of this mental continuum, with each moment of consciousness recalling the previous moment of consciousness, the experiential effect is that of consciousness apprehending itself? In other words consciousness perceiving pure consciousness is just a trained illusion or expectation. you could be right, I didn't know how else to express it. Although if it is a 'homogeneity of...mental continuum' and 'each moment having no other appearances or objects arising to it', that sounds like defacto 'pure consciousness' to me? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Irmeli: On the experiential level I feel to be all the time connected to the infinite. But I don't have much else to say about it than it is transcendental to my understanding. Llundrub:-You're not connected to it. It is you. Without it you would have nothing to make connections with. Irmeli: My relative mind is an expression of the absolute. It is not the absolute. Everything I perceive through this nervous system is relative. And that is very fascinating. In my relative perception the highest possible stage of consciousness I can be aware of is deep ignorance in comparison to something much higher I cannot even imagine. llundrub:---That is mere ignorance. The awareness would be the same regardless of whether it was more or less aware of ignorance. It doesn't change. Consciousness is clarity, or there would be no relative change because there would be no space for it. Irmeli: With this I disagree. It is theoretical nonsense. How much and what what the organizing I is aware of makes a lot of difference to how I navigate through my life. Compare yourself with a amoeba. There is lot of differences in awareness and accordingly also in lifestyle. Irmeli: In the relative world everything is in relation to everything else. But in order to perceive this relativity you must perceive something as other, as an object. Llundrub:--Yes, in order to get the co-dependency of relative phenomenon one must see their nature as being empty of the phenomena or else one would be caught up in it and not see the forest for the trees. Irmeli:The relative is phenomena,not empty. But it is crucial to disidentify the Self from the changing phenomenal world and perceive it grounded in the infinity or absolute. Irmeli: A baby for whom everything is still subject lives in an undifferentiated unity, there are no relations to anything, only oneness. In order to be capable to relate to something, it has to get separated from the embeddedness in the I. When something is still in the I, you cannot clearly perceive that function or work with it, instead it runs you. LLundrub:---The mere modern Jungian psychotherapy of individuation. Life however doesn't mean that one will always be at odds. This somehow is the key to being able to work through it though Irmeli. One must be able to abstract the basic nature of relative phenomenon in order to adjust to it. One needed live in the babyish instant desire fulfillment or tears sort of psycho-noumena, but instead, if one understands the harsh reality of the relative then one can build a nest, as it were, in that tree and find shelter in it. Irmeli: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. English being my third language, I would appreciate clear and simple expressions. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
Maybe this has come up before in FFL, but if upon enlightenment there is consciousness (transcendental) and relative experience, and the consciousness is infinite value and experience point value, I find it odd that the two remain correlated via the ONE body. Take an actor having overall awareness (infinite value) and he acts three characters in a play (point value). Speaking as each character in turn he operates within the limitations their respective egos - but as the only reality the actor knows exactly what these egos perceive and can or cannot say or do. Whereas, returning to Consciousness, in the case of someone claiming enlightenment, there seems to be only knowledge of the one body and ego that existed prior to enlightenment. Is such enlightenment still relative then, and is there another more profound level to reach in which truly one would experience everything as the Self, this Self being truly INTIMATELY cognissant of the egos and bodies of ALL creatures? Because only THEN it becomes possible to love one's neighbour as one's Self AND have the sense that a wrong done to another is truly a wrong done to one's self as well. In other words, stage 1 enlightenment is the expansion of point to infinity; stage 2, the linking back of infinity to ALL relative points, enabling the original point to know all other points intimately, directly.. Does this tally with any scripture, I wonder. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Irmeli: On the experiential level I feel to be all the time connected to the infinite. But I don't have much else to say about it than it is transcendental to my understanding. Llundrub:-You're not connected to it. It is you. Without it you would have nothing to make connections with. Irmeli: My relative mind is an expression of the absolute. It is not the absolute. Everything I perceive through this nervous system is relative. And that is very fascinating. In my relative perception the highest possible stage of consciousness I can be aware of is deep ignorance in comparison to something much higher I cannot even imagine. llundrub:---That is mere ignorance. The awareness would be the same regardless of whether it was more or less aware of ignorance. It doesn't change. Consciousness is clarity, or there would be no relative change because there would be no space for it. Irmeli: With this I disagree. It is theoretical nonsense. How much and what what the organizing I is aware of makes a lot of difference to how I navigate through my life. Compare yourself with a amoeba. There is lot of differences in awareness and accordingly also in lifestyle. Irmeli: In the relative world everything is in relation to everything else. But in order to perceive this relativity you must perceive something as other, as an object. Llundrub:--Yes, in order to get the co-dependency of relative phenomenon one must see their nature as being empty of the phenomena or else one would be caught up in it and not see the forest for the trees. Irmeli:The relative is phenomena,not empty. But it is crucial to disidentify the Self from the changing phenomenal world and perceive it grounded in the infinity or absolute. Irmeli: A baby for whom everything is still subject lives in an undifferentiated unity, there are no relations to anything, only oneness. In order to be capable to relate to something, it has to get separated from the embeddedness in the I. When something is still in the I, you cannot clearly perceive that function or work with it, instead it runs you. LLundrub:---The mere modern Jungian psychotherapy of individuation. Life however doesn't mean that one will always be at odds. This somehow is the key to being able to work through it though Irmeli. One must be able to abstract the basic nature of relative phenomenon in order to adjust to it. One needed live in the babyish instant desire fulfillment or tears sort of psycho-noumena, but instead, if one understands the harsh reality of the relative then one can build a nest, as it were, in that tree and find shelter in it. Irmeli: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. English being my third language, I would appreciate clear and simple expressions. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe this has come up before in FFL, but if upon enlightenment there is consciousness (transcendental) and relative experience, and the consciousness is infinite value and experience point value, I find it odd that the two remain correlated via the ONE body. Take an actor having overall awareness (infinite value) and he acts three characters in a play (point value). Speaking as each character in turn he operates within the limitations their respective egos - but as the only reality the actor knows exactly what these egos perceive and can or cannot say or do. Whereas, returning to Consciousness, in the case of someone claiming enlightenment, there seems to be only knowledge of the one body and ego that existed prior to enlightenment. Is such enlightenment still relative then, and is there another more profound level to reach in which truly one would experience everything as the Self, this Self being truly INTIMATELY cognissant of the egos and bodies of ALL creatures? Because only THEN it becomes possible to love one's neighbour as one's Self AND have the sense that a wrong done to another is truly a wrong done to one's self as well. In other words, stage 1 enlightenment is the expansion of point to infinity; stage 2, the linking back of infinity to ALL relative points, enabling the original point to know all other points intimately, directly.. Does this tally with any scripture, I wonder. My present understanding of the seemingly complicated phenomenon of consciousness evolution is strongly influenced by spiral dynamics. I also agree with the psychoanalytical understanding that when we use the term I, we actually can be referring to two rather different functions. First is the I that represent to us an image of ourselves, kind of who we are. Secondly there is an I as an integrating function of our experiencies to a holistic, stable experience of continuity of perceptions and understanding. When this function fails, we fall apart mentally. When people get enlightened or awakened the first I as an image of ourselves dissolves at least partly, and that I finds itself to be infinite. Then the trying to be somebody ceases, one kind of becomes nobody. And this makes it much easier to accept reality as it is. The fervent need to make it something else or becoming some ideal you have created of yourself ceases or is lesser. And you start to experience much stronger stability amidst the turmoil of life. You are kind of capable of witnessing it. Otherwise the second or organizing I remains pretty much the same. But the organizing I evolves also through clear different stages of awareness. Every child goes always through these stages in the same order. You cannot jump over any stage. This evolving of the organizing I can happen even in adulthood, even if it is much slower then. Also the different forms of intelligence, such as cognitive, emotional, moral, interpersonal etc can be at quite different stages in a person. E.g. you can be at high level cognitively, but low morally. And people can become enlightened having many kinds of combinations of stages of the organizing I in its different lines of intelligence. And how you interpret and describe your enlightenment experience depends largely, in addition to cultural influences, on the stages of organizing I you are in. The lower you are the more extravagant those interpretations tend to be. I think there are still a lot of inexperienced stages and possibilities ahead us in the evolution of the organizing I. In order to evolve to those higher stages I think the awakening of the first I to be a prerequisite. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
llundrub:---That is mere ignorance. The awareness would be the sameregardless of whether it was more or less aware of ignorance. Itdoesn't change. Consciousness is clarity, or there would be norelative change because there would be no space for it.Irmeli: With this I disagree. It is theoretical nonsense. How much andwhat what the organizing "I" is aware of makes a lot of difference tohow I navigate through my life. Compare yourself with a amoeba. Thereis lot of differences in awareness and accordingly also in lifestyle. ---If the mind was red then everything would be shades of red, if it was angry then everything would be shades of angry. Because the mind is clear and empty one experiences the full range of everything. Irmeli: A baby for whom everything is still subject lives in an undifferentiated unity, there are no relations to anything, onlyoneness. In order to be capable to relate to something, it has to get separated from the embeddedness in the "I". When something is still in the "I", you cannot clearly perceive that function or work with it, instead it runs you. LLundrub:---The mere modern Jungian psychotherapy of individuation.Life however doesn't mean that one will always be at odds. Thissomehow is the key to being able to work through it though Irmeli. One must be able to abstract the basic nature of relative phenomenonin order to adjust to it. One needed live in the babyish instantdesire fulfillment or tears sort of psycho-noumena, but instead, ifone understands the harsh reality of the relative then one can build anest, as it were, in that tree and find shelter in it. Irmeli: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. English beingmy third language, I would appreciate clear and simple expressions. --In the Jungian model baby learns to indivduate so it goes from small and crying to having the ability to make its own desires come true. I extrapolate further, outside of the Jungian model and say that if baby needs to individuate still further and accept that nothing will ever work out as planned and then actuallly one has a true ground to walk upon. To subscribe, send a message to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/and click 'Join This Group!' To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:17 PM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote: Sometimes I wonder why I keep writing on these chat groups. People here are on the conceptual level very fascinated about the absolute. I'm not. I'm fascinated about the relative. All phenomena are preceded by the mind. When the mind is comprehended, all phenomena are comprehended. -Shakyamuni Buddha, Ratnameghasutra And what happens when the manasmayakosha is pierced/burned? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
-Shakyamuni Buddha, RatnameghasutraAnd what happens when the manasmayakosha is pierced/burned?-Then people stop asking dumb questions and acting like smart asses. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
On Jun 21, 2005, at 9:45 AM, akasha_108 wrote: All phenomena are preceded by the mind. When the mind is comprehended, all phenomena are comprehended. -Shakyamuni Buddha, Ratnameghasutra And what happens when the manasmayakosha is pierced/burned? You would no longer be conditioned by ordinary mind. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 21, 2005, at 9:45 AM, akasha_108 wrote: All phenomena are preceded by the mind. When the mind is comprehended, all phenomena are comprehended. -Shakyamuni Buddha, Ratnameghasutra And what happens when the manasmayakosha is pierced/burned? You would no longer be conditioned by ordinary mind. A beautiful circular triptych on thought, action, and enlightenment: akasha_108's post: thought of enlightenment (leading to the second and third posts, containing them both) Llundrub's post: action for enlightenment (leading from the first post, and leading to the third post, inferring them both) Vaj's post: expression of enlightenment (following the second post and leading back to the first post, commenting on them both) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Is such enlightenment still relative then, and is there another more profound level to reach in which truly one would experience everything as the Self, this Self being truly INTIMATELY cognissant of the egos and bodies of ALL creatures? Because only THEN it becomes possible to love one's neighbour as one's Self AND have the sense that a wrong done to another is truly a wrong done to one's self as well. Can't say as it is more profound particularly, but it's been my experience that intimacy with the egos and physiologies of others as and in this bodymind certainly becomes available as other aspects of oneself. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Is such enlightenment still relative then, and is there another more profound level to reach in which truly one would experience everything as the Self, this Self being truly INTIMATELY cognissant of the egos and bodies of ALL creatures? Because only THEN it becomes possible to love one's neighbour as one's Self AND have the sense that a wrong done to another is truly a wrong done to one's self as well. Can't say as it is more profound particularly, but it's been my experience that intimacy with the egos and physiologies of others as and in this bodymind certainly becomes available as other aspects of oneself. Oh No, not George Bush! Hi Rory! Welcom back! To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
Everything that is "relative" is associated with the ego. The ego does not and cannot love. The ego is based in seperateness, and it's "job" is to continue the illusion of seperateness. On the other hand, the "absolute" is the soul. Pure consiousness is the experience or one's own soul. The light and energy of the soul behind all experience. The soul is love. It's intension to manifest here on earth was the intension of love. The more integrated the soul becomes in the body, the more one radiates love. Anytime one is not loving, we can be sure the ego is in charge. That is why it is so hard to get people to meditate. Because all advertisement appeals to ego. How do you advertise something that will eventually destroy the ego, and make it irrevelant. Even the so-called false advertisement for the 'flying technique' is all ego based. It's a catch 22...Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:snip Is such enlightenment still "relative" then, and is there another more profound level to reach in which truly one would experience everything as the Self, this Self being truly INTIMATELY cognissant of the egos and bodies of ALL creatures? Because only THEN it becomes possible to love one's neighbour as one's Self AND have the sense that a wrong done to another is truly a wrong done to one's "self" as well. Can't say as it is more profound particularly, but it's been my experience that intimacy with the egos and physiologies of others as and in this bodymind certainly becomes available as other aspects of oneself.To subscribe, send a message to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh No, not George Bush! Hi Rory! Welcom back! :-D Hiya Jim. Thanks. And happy birthday, BTW! To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh No, not George Bush! Hi Rory! Welcom back! :-D Hiya Jim. Thanks. And happy birthday, BTW! Right-E-o!! To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
on 6/21/05 4:54 AM, claudiouk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe this has come up before in FFL, but if upon enlightenment there is consciousness (transcendental) and relative experience, and the consciousness is infinite value and experience point value, I find it odd that the two remain correlated via the ONE body. Enlightenment is the ability to embody all paradoxical realities. Take an actor having overall awareness (infinite value) and he acts three characters in a play (point value). Speaking as each character in turn he operates within the limitations their respective egos - but as the only reality the actor knows exactly what these egos perceive and can or cannot say or do. Whereas, returning to Consciousness, in the case of someone claiming enlightenment, there seems to be only knowledge of the one body and ego that existed prior to enlightenment. Is such enlightenment still relative then, and is there another more profound level to reach in which truly one would experience everything as the Self, this Self being truly INTIMATELY cognissant of the egos and bodies of ALL creatures? Because only THEN it becomes possible to love one's neighbour as one's Self AND have the sense that a wrong done to another is truly a wrong done to one's self as well. Sounds like you're alluding to omniscience. I think we can know ourSelf as the Self in all beings and see all beings in the Self without actually perceiving through the senses of all beings. That would be a relative ability, and enlightenment is not defined by relative abilities. In other words, stage 1 enlightenment is the expansion of point to infinity; stage 2, the linking back of infinity to ALL relative points, enabling the original point to know all other points intimately, directly.. Does this tally with any scripture, I wonder. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
---Now that you are back into the relative, what are your interests and things do do...your checklist of priorities. Have you taken the Bodhisattva vow; if so, what are your plans for helping people? (other than just Being). For example, the movie 6th Sense has always fascinated me since it has bolstered my opinion that there are a lot of dead people trapped in astral quagmires, awating rescue. Do you have a visual access to these non-physical realms, and can you see the people trapped there? According to Buddhist principles, Enlightened people, the Buddhas, have unlimited access to all/any dimensions of existence should they choose to see or venture into those realms with a subtle body. Have you ventured into those realms to see if anybody is trapped? Also, I'd like to ask you (since you're Enlightened) to ask Sakyamuni Buddha what he things about MMY, and then ask Shiva and Durga also. This is not a joke. I'm serious. Awaiting your reply...; and thanks! Sometimes I wonder why I keep writing on these chat groups. People here are on the conceptual level very fascinated about the absolute. I'm not. I'm fascinated about the relative. On the experiential level I feel to be all the time connected to the infinite. But I don't have much else to say about it than it is transcendental to my understanding. Everything I perceive through this nervous system is relative. And that is very fascinating. In my relative perception the highest possible stage of consciousness I can be aware of is deep ignorance in comparison to something much higher I cannot even imagine. In the relative world everything is in relation to everything else. But in order to perceive this relativity you must perceive something as other, as an object. A baby for whom everything is still subject lives in an undifferentiated unity, there are no relations to anything, only oneness. In order to be capable to relate to something, it has to get separated from the embeddedness in the I. When something is still in the I, you cannot clearly perceive that function or work with it, instead it runs you. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, purushaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Now that you are back into the relative, what are your interests and things do do...your checklist of priorities. Have you taken the Bodhisattva vow; if so, what are your plans for helping people? (other than just Being). For example, the movie 6th Sense has always fascinated me since it has bolstered my opinion that there are a lot of dead people trapped in astral quagmires, awating rescue. Do you have a visual access to these non-physical realms, and can you see the people trapped there? According to Buddhist principles, Enlightened people, the Buddhas, have unlimited access to all/any dimensions of existence should they choose to see or venture into those realms with a subtle body. Have you ventured into those realms to see if anybody is trapped? Enlightenment I understand to be a relative concept. I think we all are enlightened according to some standard. But as seen from a much higher stage of consciousness than mine, I live in deep ignorance. I have felt a deep desire to heal myself. I've learned to work on a subtle level with energies and emotions and to gradually transform or heal those energies. I have been working with just healing myself. But since we all are connected more or less to each other through these subtle level energies, this work influences others also. I have no visual access to the non-physical realms, but on the level of physical sensations I have a lot of subtle perceptions, that most probably could be best explained by the concept teleportation. I also internally can hear very subtle voices and impulses and suggestions that are sent by some others to me. Sometimes I even may hear those others discussing with each other in my mind, while I'm just silently witnessing it. When my mind is quiet with no gross level thoughts, which quite often is the case, instead of total silence I perceive these very subtle voices. Maybe I am not enlightened according to the Buddhist standards. I have not felt much interest in entities like Shiva or Durga etc. But as I stated above subtle level perceptions and sensations of others I have a lot. But according to my understanding they are all beings having a physical body now. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes I wonder why I keep writing on these chat groups. People here are on the conceptual level very fascinated about the absolute. I'm not. I'm fascinated about the relative. Right on! The absolute takes care of itself, without my attention, thanks. But to appreciate the wonder of the world around me, during what are arguably not the happiest times the earth has ever seen, that's a challenge. If we can sing with the wind song, Chant with thunder, Play upon the lightning Melodies of wonder Into wonder life will open -- Bruce Cockburn, paraphrasing the Tao Te Ching To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The relative is the clearest mirror of truth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rudra_joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the relative is the clearest mirror of truth. Truth hits one right between the eyes pretty much constantly. While poverty and suffering occurs on Earth there cannot be Heaven. The small and weak must be pulled into the heavenly by sheer force and not asked. What about personal will you ask? I am talking about empowering people presently and for the future where when heaven comes it will come with spaceships and light travel and exotic merriments that last for lifetimes from planets named things like Planet Deadwood, or the happy small ocean world, Planet Gallagher where the water has an extra oxygen covalence and energy is free. People would have forceably taken from a small ignorant planet in the middle of nowhere, and made Earth instead the center of the galaxy and myth of all time stature. Then heavenly people would visit and think of earth as the birthright and birthplace of heaven. Yes, in this fantasy heaven is a place right here on earth. The Shulgen thing said that exponentially hallucinogens will increase, and so one would expect some better ones, as if. Maybe they'll be a fragrant chysanthemum liquer from a sweet pollen from planet Maharishi where the vedas play to pink bees which burst from contact with the flowers and leave behind complex polysaccharide dust. But not while people on Earth are suffering. That has to stop for heaven. Or in my eyes your in a fantasy world. You trippin' homey. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
