Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:36 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Him: No, I don't have time to clarify my position right now but you might remember that I don't doubt the notion of continuous witnessing (in fact, I've had very long stretches of it) nor even of celestial vision/ god consciousness (though it is defined and described variously); it's just that direct experiences has taught me that these experiences are not very valuable. I don't call these states enlightenment, thought they DO fit the Hindu model of what the term (in it's various forms: bodhi, jivanmukta, brahmavidya, etc.) means. This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and UC being transitory states. Yet this is just new age speculation. The tradition itself is very clear on what UC, videha-mukti, is and it is not a transitional state.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
Thanks for your thoughtful and poignant post New Morn: On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:07 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I have found as long as I am claiming C.C., G.C., or U.C., and Brahman has not yet claimed me, I am not fully liberated, and am still attached or bound to experience. Along these same lines, when you were asking about how we fall into ignorance, I find that consciousness *constantly* collapses into the particle, to experience the effect of our causative and innocent thought as a created being, to enter into the world of our own making. If the consciousness *believes* the particle-experience, or is caught in a given belief, it identifies with the concreteness of the effect and forgets the subtle simplicity of its own cause; it finds the bindu to be binding, and experiences the ignorance of the particle, or more accurately the particle's ignorance of the freedom of ourself, of That-Self. When we remember Oh, yes, this particle-experience is not me; it is only one infinitesimal particle in the emptiful, Indefinable, Ungraspable That-Self, then Brahman remembers itself, and acts as the Cosmic Consciousness of the particle -- and so on, as described earlier :-) With all due respect, and I mean that earnestly, and I am not presenting an argument -- but rather simply making some observations. In college, I took a course titled Altered States of Consciousness taught by Charles Tart -- who had written the definitive text on the topic at that time -- and was on the map as a key, if not the key researcher in such. He once commented that he had friends who took lots of very pure acid every weekend -- and had experiences described along the way Rory descibes his. And we all nodded -- having had firneds or peers along the same lines-- many of us coming of age before LSD was made illegal -- and some vials of very pure stuff was widely available. But he lamented, that these friends did not seem to benefit any from such experiences --as real as they seemed to be. They did not change behaviors, they did not produce deep new insights in their fields, they did not become more compassionate or reflecting any sort of moral or ethical growth. Tying to Danas post, he ask cogently, the same sorts of questions / observations of Dr Tart (Charlie to many on campus). Jim may be eternally free -- Rory plays with his particles, Tom has his hardrive loaded every morning by the cosmic computer. All of which is good and fine. But there is nothing either in their descriptions of their states, or their manifest behavior, insights, cognitive and logical capabilities etc that appeal much to me, inspire me to do anything to move in the direction of their attainments. Nor does it fit my evolving view of a meaningful life. See my adjacent post. These are some great points. I can't help but point out that this is one reason why it is important to have a spiritual guide or friend with enough experience to explain meditative experiences and so students don't look at them as some overly important events or states. The most important thing one can do in even the most profound meditative experiences is to remain in equanimity. A profound meditative experience, unless you are using experiences generated for some specific purposes, should be no different than any other experience in life. Otherwise you block yourself IMO. Essentially meditative experiences are a form of purification, but once they are attached to, made into stories, etc. they cease to have that function.
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:36 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Him: No, I don't have time to clarify my position right now but you might remember that I don't doubt the notion of continuous witnessing (in fact, I've had very long stretches of it) nor even of celestial vision/ god consciousness (though it is defined and described variously); it's just that direct experiences has taught me that these experiences are not very valuable. I don't call these states enlightenment, thought they DO fit the Hindu model of what the term (in it's various forms: bodhi, jivanmukta, brahmavidya, etc.) means. This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and UC being transitory states. Yet this is just new age speculation. The tradition itself is very clear on what UC, videha-mukti, is and it is not a transitional state. You must be misintepreting that. Its a very subtle difference between Brahman and UC. Each could be mistaken for the other. I'll trust my experience over a tradition any day.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
On Jul 31, 2007, at 9:59 AM, jim_flanegin wrote: Yet this is just new age speculation. The tradition itself is very clear on what UC, videha-mukti, is and it is not a transitional state. You must be misintepreting that. Its a very subtle difference between Brahman and UC. Each could be mistaken for the other. I'll trust my experience over a tradition any day.:-) Then feel free to stop using the continuous tradition's lingo for your own experiences. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:36 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and UC being transitory states. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet this is just new age speculation. Au contraire, mon frere -- it is my direct experience :-) Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The tradition itself is very clear on what UC, videha-mukti, is and it is not a transitional state. If there is an I who is in U.C., it is very definitely a transitional state, with more (or less) to follow! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:36 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and UC being transitory states. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Yet this is just new age speculation. Au contraire, mon frere -- it is my direct experience :-) Yet Jim in a post yesterday dismissed the analogy of acid induced states of being as not valid because they were not permanent. Thats not a gotcha quote. But a continuing crack of wonderment at the cosmic egg of your View. And while some may trot out the tired (IMO) saw of you just can't handle paradox -- I remind you of my view that mundane parodoxes are often not profound -- and are certainly not true by the fact that they contradictory statements. Sometimes, most of the time, contrdictory statements are just what they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:36 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and UC being transitory states. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Yet this is just new age speculation. Rory wrote: Au contraire, mon frere -- it is my direct experience :-) New wrote: Yet Jim in a post yesterday dismissed the analogy of acid induced states of being as not valid because they were not permanent. I think that was me, actually. IME, ignorance, C.C., G.C., U.C. -- any state of consciousness is transitory, because it's claimed by a particle still believing itself to be in the Universe, subject to space and time and experience; only That which is the culmination of U.C., Brahman recognizing itSelf, is permanent, because it has always been here, just as it is, and the I-particle eventually gets tired of superimposing difference, distinction, intellect, upon That and surrenders into the utter perfection of what is, what has always been, what will always be. New: Thats not a gotcha quote. But a continuing crack of wonderment at the cosmic egg of your View. And while some may trot out the tired (IMO) saw of you just can't handle paradox -- I remind you of my view that mundane parodoxes are often not profound -- and are certainly not true by the fact that they contradictory statements. Sometimes, most of the time, contrdictory statements are just what they are. I must be missing something, New, because I don't even see a contradiction here, let alone a paradox! Could you elaborate? *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 31, 2007, at 9:59 AM, jim_flanegin wrote: Yet this is just new age speculation. The tradition itself is very clear on what UC, videha-mukti, is and it is not a transitional state. You must be misintepreting that. Its a very subtle difference between Brahman and UC. Each could be mistaken for the other. I'll trust my experience over a tradition any day.:-) Then feel free to stop using the continuous tradition's lingo for your own experiences. :-) I use the term UC as explained by MMY. I haven't yet heard him say whether or not the state was meant to be permanent. My experience is that it isn't.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet Jim in a post yesterday dismissed the analogy of acid induced states of being as not valid because they were not permanent. Though it was Rory who said that, I did want to add that the quid pro quo regarding drug induced or enhanced spiritual experiences is that the experiences *are* produced by the drug, and so whatever the drug adds to the body and mind in order to produce an effect, must necessarily be depleted afterwards, so there is a net zero effect. The most commonly known of these depletion results is the alcohol induced hangover. This see-sawing of the physiology makes it impossible, as your friends noted, to induce permanent spiritual change solely through drug use, no matter how insightful the drug induced experiences might be.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
---except for the natural drugs (neurotransmitters) produced by your own body, some of them similar to the drug DMT. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Yet Jim in a post yesterday dismissed the analogy of acid induced states of being as not valid because they were not permanent. Though it was Rory who said that, I did want to add that the quid pro quo regarding drug induced or enhanced spiritual experiences is that the experiences *are* produced by the drug, and so whatever the drug adds to the body and mind in order to produce an effect, must necessarily be depleted afterwards, so there is a net zero effect. The most commonly known of these depletion results is the alcohol induced hangover. This see-sawing of the physiology makes it impossible, as your friends noted, to induce permanent spiritual change solely through drug use, no matter how insightful the drug induced experiences might be.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hyperbolicgeometry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---except for the natural drugs (neurotransmitters) produced by your own body, some of them similar to the drug DMT. Probably a matter of quantity in those cases.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
Excellent conversation. Thanks. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Him: I said, about your enlightened friend: Good for him. Really. But no big deal. Why would it be? Me: I didn't say it was. Neither would he. But I was somehow under the impression that you didn't believe people experienced such states. Him: No, I don't have time to clarify my position right now but you might remember that I don't doubt the notion of continuous witnessing (in fact, I've had very long stretches of it) nor even of celestial vision/ god consciousness (though it is defined and described variously); it's just that direct experiences has taught me that these experiences are not very valuable. I don't call these states enlightenment, thought they DO fit the Hindu model of what the term (in it's various forms: bodhi, jivanmukta, brahmavidya, etc.) means. I think the Mahayana Buddhists have the bar set in the correct place for two reasons: (1) because reaching the ten paramitas (perfections) is a much more wholistic bar, and (2) because since it's unreachable, there's less danger of bad-guru adulation. As you will also remember, since all human experience outside of pure samadhi is shaped and interpreted by previous conditioning, there is no such thing as unmediated conscious of experience - and this is easily proven in the laboratory. Lastly, I also agree with Huston smith that what is much more important than altered states of consciousness is altered traits of behavior. TM rhetoric aside, if one has ussues with one's family before they reach enlightenment, they'll continue to have them after as well. What we need is about ten thousand more each of Mother Theresa, Bill McKibben, Dorothy Day, Noam Chomskys, and Doctors Without Borders and far less emphasis on the enlightenment model. Even when we speak within groups fostering that model, all emphasis (of course this is only my opinion) for measuring spiritual maturity should be on how wisdom manifests as compassion. Enlightenment means nothing to me if it doesn't show up in direct action to help. Me: I pretty much agree with you, although I still think the solitary yogi in a cave may be making a significant contribution in subtle yet powerful ways. But I feel strongly that if someone like MMY steps up on the public stage and claims or implies that he is a super-duper enlightened guy, then he'd better be able to walk his talk. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.23/924 - Release Date: 7/28/2007 3:50 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Him: No, I don't have time to clarify my position right now but you might remember that I don't doubt the notion of continuous witnessing (in fact, I've had very long stretches of it) nor even of celestial vision/ god consciousness (though it is defined and described variously); it's just that direct experiences has taught me that these experiences are not very valuable. I don't call these states enlightenment, thought they DO fit the Hindu model of what the term (in it's various forms: bodhi, jivanmukta, brahmavidya, etc.) means. This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and UC being transitory states. I remember distinctly peaking on GC experiences; seeing angels, Deities, Galactic visions away from earth, Guru Dev, blah, blah, blah, and through it all, I was definitely NOT enlightened. My vision was certainly clear, and this skill I picked up by practicing siddhis has stayed with me, but just because I could see such things, and dwell in both Heaven and Hell didn't mean that I had achieved my eternal freedom, Self Realization, or enlightenment yet.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Him: No, I don't have time to clarify my position right now but you might remember that I don't doubt the notion of continuous witnessing (in fact, I've had very long stretches of it) nor even of celestial vision/ god consciousness (though it is defined and described variously); it's just that direct experiences has taught me that these experiences are not very valuable. I don't call these states enlightenment, thought they DO fit the Hindu model of what the term (in it's various forms: bodhi, jivanmukta, brahmavidya, etc.) means. This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and UC being transitory states. I remember distinctly peaking on GC experiences; seeing angels, Deities, Galactic visions away from earth, Guru Dev, blah, blah, blah, and through it all, I was definitely NOT enlightened. My vision was certainly clear, and this skill I picked up by practicing siddhis has stayed with me, but just because I could see such things, and dwell in both Heaven and Hell didn't mean that I had achieved my eternal freedom, Self Realization, or enlightenment yet.:-) Yes, I have found as long as I am claiming C.C., G.C., or U.C., and Brahman has not yet claimed me, I am not fully liberated, and am still attached or bound to experience. Along these same lines, when you were asking about how we fall into ignorance, I find that consciousness *constantly* collapses into the particle, to experience the effect of our causative and innocent thought as a created being, to enter into the world of our own making. If the consciousness *believes* the particle-experience, or is caught in a given belief, it identifies with the concreteness of the effect and forgets the subtle simplicity of its own cause; it finds the bindu to be binding, and experiences the ignorance of the particle, or more accurately the particle's ignorance of the freedom of ourself, of That-Self. When we remember Oh, yes, this particle-experience is not me; it is only one infinitesimal particle in the emptiful, Indefinable, Ungraspable That-Self, then Brahman remembers itself, and acts as the Cosmic Consciousness of the particle -- and so on, as described earlier :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Him: No, I don't have time to clarify my position right now but you might remember that I don't doubt the notion of continuous witnessing (in fact, I've had very long stretches of it) nor even of celestial vision/ god consciousness (though it is defined and described variously); it's just that direct experiences has taught me that these experiences are not very valuable. I don't call these states enlightenment, thought they DO fit the Hindu model of what the term (in it's various forms: bodhi, jivanmukta, brahmavidya, etc.) means. This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and UC being transitory states. I remember distinctly peaking on GC experiences; seeing angels, Deities, Galactic visions away from earth, Guru Dev, blah, blah, blah, and through it all, I was definitely NOT enlightened. My vision was certainly clear, and this skill I picked up by practicing siddhis has stayed with me, but just because I could see such things, and dwell in both Heaven and Hell didn't mean that I had achieved my eternal freedom, Self Realization, or enlightenment yet.:-) Yes, I have found as long as I am claiming C.C., G.C., or U.C., and Brahman has not yet claimed me, I am not fully liberated, and am still attached or bound to experience. Along these same lines, when you were asking about how we fall into ignorance, I find that consciousness *constantly* collapses into the particle, to experience the effect of our causative and innocent thought as a created being, to enter into the world of our own making. If the consciousness *believes* the particle-experience, or is caught in a given belief, it identifies with the concreteness of the effect and forgets the subtle simplicity of its own cause; it finds the bindu to be binding, and experiences the ignorance of the particle, or more accurately the particle's ignorance of the freedom of ourself, of That-Self. When we remember Oh, yes, this particle-experience is not me; it is only one infinitesimal particle in the emptiful, Indefinable, Ungraspable That-Self, then Brahman remembers itself, and acts as the Cosmic Consciousness of the particle -- and so on, as described earlier :-) Hi Rory- yeah, but the diff in Brahman is that consciousness concentrates into the particle, but doesn't really collapse into it- in my experience, it remains 'springy' so that the concentration within the particle even feels temporary and playful- same with any focus during thought or activity. So the senses themselves are harnessed by Brahman, if we can say such a thing. So the senses and the overall experience is so much more intense, and yet, it is all ephemeral, like clouds or sunlight.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
Rory wrote: Yes, I have found as long as I am claiming C.C., G.C., or U.C., and Brahman has not yet claimed me, I am not fully liberated, and am still attached or bound to experience. Along these same lines, when you were asking about how we fall into ignorance, I find that consciousness *constantly* collapses into the particle, to experience the effect of our causative and innocent thought as a created being, to enter into the world of our own making. If the consciousness *believes* the particle-experience, or is caught in a given belief, it identifies with the concreteness of the effect and forgets the subtle simplicity of its own cause; it finds the bindu to be binding, and experiences the ignorance of the particle, or more accurately the particle's ignorance of the freedom of ourself, of That-Self. When we remember Oh, yes, this particle-experience is not me; it is only one infinitesimal particle in the emptiful, Indefinable, Ungraspable That-Self, then Brahman remembers itself, and acts as the Cosmic Consciousness of the particle -- and so on, as described earlier :-) jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Rory- yeah, but the diff in Brahman is that consciousness concentrates into the particle, but doesn't really collapse into it- in my experience, it remains 'springy' so that the concentration within the particle even feels temporary and playful- same with any focus during thought or activity. So the senses themselves are harnessed by Brahman, if we can say such a thing. So the senses and the overall experience is so much more intense, and yet, it is all ephemeral, like clouds or sunlight.:-) Right, once free, always free; we are no longer fully identifying with the particle, or with ourselves as effect. And yes, the senses *are* harnessed by Brahman. Experience, the Universe, is now bound and surrounded by us, instead of vice-versa. I was just trying to describe the mechanics of how Brahman supports ignorance as well as enlightenment, or how we constantly recapitulate incarnation into spacetime and transcendence through manifesting and enlightening our particles *lol* *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rory wrote: Yes, I have found as long as I am claiming C.C., G.C., or U.C., and Brahman has not yet claimed me, I am not fully liberated, and am still attached or bound to experience. Along these same lines, when you were asking about how we fall into ignorance, I find that consciousness *constantly* collapses into the particle, to experience the effect of our causative and innocent thought as a created being, to enter into the world of our own making. If the consciousness *believes* the particle- experience, or is caught in a given belief, it identifies with the concreteness of the effect and forgets the subtle simplicity of its own cause; it finds the bindu to be binding, and experiences the ignorance of the particle, or more accurately the particle's ignorance of the freedom of ourself, of That-Self. When we remember Oh, yes, this particle-experience is not me; it is only one infinitesimal particle in the emptiful, Indefinable, Ungraspable That-Self, then Brahman remembers itself, and acts as the Cosmic Consciousness of the particle -- and so on, as described earlier :-) jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Hi Rory- yeah, but the diff in Brahman is that consciousness concentrates into the particle, but doesn't really collapse into it- in my experience, it remains 'springy' so that the concentration within the particle even feels temporary and playful- same with any focus during thought or activity. So the senses themselves are harnessed by Brahman, if we can say such a thing. So the senses and the overall experience is so much more intense, and yet, it is all ephemeral, like clouds or sunlight.:-) Right, once free, always free; we are no longer fully identifying with the particle, or with ourselves as effect. And yes, the senses *are* harnessed by Brahman. Experience, the Universe, is now bound and surrounded by us, instead of vice-versa. I was just trying to describe the mechanics of how Brahman supports ignorance as well as enlightenment, or how we constantly recapitulate incarnation into spacetime and transcendence through manifesting and enlightening our particles *lol* This is why I say, as Brahman I am the Cosmic Consciousness of my particle(s), instead of I am in C.C., and as Krishna/Karttikeya I am the God Consciousness of my particle(s), instead of I am in G.C., and so on -- I am not in ignorance or C.C. or G.C. or whatever; my particles may temporarily believe they are. The states of consciousness are in Us, we are not fully contained in any of them :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Hi Rory- yeah, but the diff in Brahman is that consciousness concentrates into the particle, but doesn't really collapse into it- snip There is or can be a total collapse, as Krishna/Karttikeya begins to be enlivened, but not one in which the wholeness or consciousness is *lost* in the collapse -- rather one in which the bliss and love are actually *intensified* to infinity by being compressed, as THAT takes on the localized but still infinite *charm* and *personality* of Godhead :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I say, as Brahman I am the Cosmic Consciousness of my particle(s), instead of I am in C.C., and as Krishna/Karttikeya I am the God Consciousness of my particle(s), instead of I am in G.C., and so on -- I am not in ignorance or C.C. or G.C. or whatever; my particles may temporarily believe they are. The states of consciousness are in Us, we are not fully contained in any of them :-) *L*L*L* Thanks!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Hi Rory- yeah, but the diff in Brahman is that consciousness concentrates into the particle, but doesn't really collapse into it- snip There is or can be a total collapse, as Krishna/Karttikeya begins to be enlivened, but not one in which the wholeness or consciousness is *lost* in the collapse -- rather one in which the bliss and love are actually *intensified* to infinity by being compressed, as THAT takes on the localized but still infinite *charm* and *personality* of Godhead :-) Yeah- that was what I was lamely trying to express earlier-- that the collapsing is more of a concentration or compression of life essence vs some imprisonment of it.:-) Jai Krishna! (Why not? lol!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
jim_flanegin wrote: Hi Rory- yeah, but the diff in Brahman is that consciousness concentrates into the particle, but doesn't really collapse into it- snip Rory Goff wrote: There is or can be a total collapse, as Krishna/Karttikeya begins to be enlivened, but not one in which the wholeness or consciousness is *lost* in the collapse -- rather one in which the bliss and love are actually *intensified* to infinity by being compressed, as THAT takes on the localized but still infinite *charm* and *personality* of Godhead :-) jim_flanegin wrote: Yeah- that was what I was lamely trying to express earlier-- that the collapsing is more of a concentration or compression of life essence vs some imprisonment of it.:-) Jai Krishna! (Why not? lol!) Ahh, OK, yes, Jim! I appreciate now your use of the word concentrates -- really a beautiful word there, both literally and figuratively :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jim_flanegin wrote: Hi Rory- yeah, but the diff in Brahman is that consciousness concentrates into the particle, but doesn't really collapse into it- snip Rory Goff wrote: There is or can be a total collapse, as Krishna/Karttikeya begins to be enlivened, but not one in which the wholeness or consciousness is *lost* in the collapse -- rather one in which the bliss and love are actually *intensified* to infinity by being compressed, as THAT takes on the localized but still infinite *charm* and *personality* of Godhead :-) jim_flanegin wrote: Yeah- that was what I was lamely trying to express earlier-- that the collapsing is more of a concentration or compression of life essence vs some imprisonment of it.:-) Jai Krishna! (Why not? lol!) Ahh, OK, yes, Jim! I appreciate now your use of the word concentrates -- really a beautiful word there, both literally and figuratively :-) Yes, *each* bindu point remaining absolutely true to its self, and yet veritably exploding with Bliss-- pretty cool, huh? Which brings me to the word, ignorance, a word which many seekers don't like. At first I thought, why ignorance, a verb form, the act of ignoring? Who is ignoring what? Is the small seeker willfully ignoring him or her self? Then I thought, no, not really, because little seekers don't really exist, so how can something which is (almost) wholly an illusion, ignore itself?. Then I thought,Of course, it is Brahman ignoring itself. Purely for the joy of rediscovering itself through the little seeker, who will then metamorphize into Brahman. To enjoy its Awakening all over again!. That finally made sense to me (and was a whole lot more fun!). So Brahman through concentrating a bindu point (though not very precisely, possibly because of the attachment of karma) into human form (for purposes of brevity, I'll not list the innumerable ignorant life forms here), and then further concentrating THAT, awakens into the oneness of Brahman, and in so doing, extinguishes the small seeker. Bye, bye! Hello!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, *each* bindu point remaining absolutely true to its self, and yet veritably exploding with Bliss-- pretty cool, huh? Yes :-) Which brings me to the word, ignorance, a word which many seekers don't like. At first I thought, why ignorance, a verb form, the act of ignoring? Who is ignoring what? Is the small seeker willfully ignoring him or her self? Then I thought, no, not really, because little seekers don't really exist, so how can something which is (almost) wholly an illusion, ignore itself?. Then I thought,Of course, it is Brahman ignoring itself. YES :-) Purely for the joy of rediscovering itself through the little seeker, who will then metamorphize into Brahman. To enjoy its Awakening all over again!. That finally made sense to me (and was a whole lot more fun!). YES, from yet another angle/angel -- very nicely put :-) So Brahman through concentrating a bindu point (though not very precisely, possibly because of the attachment of karma) into human form (for purposes of brevity, I'll not list the innumerable ignorant life forms here), and then further concentrating THAT, awakens into the oneness of Brahman, and in so doing, extinguishes the small seeker. Bye, bye! Hello!:-) *lol* Sweet!
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Yes, *each* bindu point remaining absolutely true to its self, and yet veritably exploding with Bliss-- pretty cool, huh? Yes :-) Which brings me to the word, ignorance, a word which many seekers don't like. At first I thought, why ignorance, a verb form, the act of ignoring? Who is ignoring what? Is the small seeker willfully ignoring him or her self? Then I thought, no, not really, because little seekers don't really exist, so how can something which is (almost) wholly an illusion, ignore itself?. Then I thought,Of course, it is Brahman ignoring itself. YES :-) Purely for the joy of rediscovering itself through the little seeker, who will then metamorphize into Brahman. To enjoy its Awakening all over again!. That finally made sense to me (and was a whole lot more fun!). YES, from yet another angle/angel -- very nicely put :-) So Brahman through concentrating a bindu point (though not very precisely, possibly because of the attachment of karma) into human form (for purposes of brevity, I'll not list the innumerable ignorant life forms here), and then further concentrating THAT, awakens into the oneness of Brahman, and in so doing, extinguishes the small seeker. Bye, bye! Hello!:-) *lol* Sweet! Nothing like finding another true mood Maker on this forum:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I have found as long as I am claiming C.C., G.C., or U.C., and Brahman has not yet claimed me, I am not fully liberated, and am still attached or bound to experience. Along these same lines, when you were asking about how we fall into ignorance, I find that consciousness *constantly* collapses into the particle, to experience the effect of our causative and innocent thought as a created being, to enter into the world of our own making. If the consciousness *believes* the particle-experience, or is caught in a given belief, it identifies with the concreteness of the effect and forgets the subtle simplicity of its own cause; it finds the bindu to be binding, and experiences the ignorance of the particle, or more accurately the particle's ignorance of the freedom of ourself, of That-Self. When we remember Oh, yes, this particle-experience is not me; it is only one infinitesimal particle in the emptiful, Indefinable, Ungraspable That-Self, then Brahman remembers itself, and acts as the Cosmic Consciousness of the particle -- and so on, as described earlier :-) With all due respect, and I mean that earnestly, and I am not presenting an argument -- but rather simply making some observations. In college, I took a course titled Altered States of Consciousness taught by Charles Tart -- who had written the definitive text on the topic at that time -- and was on the map as a key, if not the key researcher in such. He once commented that he had friends who took lots of very pure acid every weekend -- and had experiences described along the way Rory descibes his. And we all nodded -- having had firneds or peers along the same lines-- many of us coming of age before LSD was made illegal -- and some vials of very pure stuff was widely available. But he lamented, that these friends did not seem to benefit any from such experiences --as real as they seemed to be. They did not change behaviors, they did not produce deep new insights in their fields, they did not become more compassionate or reflecting any sort of moral or ethical growth. Tying to Danas post, he ask cogently, the same sorts of questions / observations of Dr Tart (Charlie to many on campus). Jim may be eternally free -- Rory plays with his particles, Tom has his hardrive loaded every morning by the cosmic computer. All of which is good and fine. But there is nothing either in their descriptions of their states, or their manifest behavior, insights, cognitive and logical capabilities etc that appeal much to me, inspire me to do anything to move in the direction of their attainments. Nor does it fit my evolving view of a meaningful life. See my adjacent post. And a side point, going back to posts of last week: the discussion on how do you know you are awake and not in a dream. (That is in a state as analogous to waking as is dreaming). How do you know for sure you are not in Plato's cave. How do you know that 3 dimensions is the end all and be all and not missing out stupendously just as a flatliner -- in a two dimensional existence -- is compared to our existence. The answer, -- was weak in my view. the answer being, imo, along the lines of being awake is a state of being and not a state of thought, And thus open KNOWS a state of being, a priori, no proof needed. In conversations with a number of my acid gulping friends and peers, an some experiences of my own, the consensus was similar: Being on good acid is a state of Being and its obvious that one is Awake compared to being straight. But how substantial was that state of being. Per above discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Yes, I have found as long as I am claiming C.C., G.C., or U.C., and Brahman has not yet claimed me, I am not fully liberated, and am still attached or bound to experience. Along these same lines, when you were asking about how we fall into ignorance, I find that consciousness *constantly* collapses into the particle, to experience the effect of our causative and innocent thought as a created being, to enter into the world of our own making. If the consciousness *believes* the particle-experience, or is caught in a given belief, it identifies with the concreteness of the effect and forgets the subtle simplicity of its own cause; it finds the bindu to be binding, and experiences the ignorance of the particle, or more accurately the particle's ignorance of the freedom of ourself, of That-Self. When we remember Oh, yes, this particle-experience is not me; it is only one infinitesimal particle in the emptiful, Indefinable, Ungraspable That-Self, then Brahman remembers itself, and acts as the Cosmic Consciousness of the particle -- and so on, as described earlier :-) With all due respect, and I mean that earnestly, and I am not presenting an argument -- but rather simply making some observations. In college, I took a course titled Altered States of Consciousness taught by Charles Tart -- who had written the definitive text on the topic at that time -- and was on the map as a key, if not the key researcher in such. He once commented that he had friends who took lots of very pure acid every weekend -- and had experiences described along the way Rory descibes his. And we all nodded -- having had firneds or peers along the same lines-- many of us coming of age before LSD was made illegal -- and some vials of very pure stuff was widely available. But he lamented, that these friends did not seem to benefit any from such experiences --as real as they seemed to be. They did not change behaviors, they did not produce deep new insights in their fields, they did not become more compassionate or reflecting any sort of moral or ethical growth. I think this may be due to states of consciousness' being temporarily attained via external means, rather than fully understood in terms of the Self, which is beyond the various states. I have noticed enhancements of love, forgiveness, compassion, morality etc. as a result of more and more of my particles' dissolving into us -- my play is quite serious :-) -- so that *I* am pleased with me even if you may not be, as you intimate below :-) Tying to Danas post, he ask cogently, the same sorts of questions / observations of Dr Tart (Charlie to many on campus). Jim may be eternally free -- Rory plays with his particles, Tom has his hardrive loaded every morning by the cosmic computer. All of which is good and fine. But there is nothing either in their descriptions of their states, or their manifest behavior, insights, cognitive and logical capabilities etc that appeal much to me, inspire me to do anything to move in the direction of their attainments. Nor does it fit my evolving view of a meaningful life. See my adjacent post. And a side point, going back to posts of last week: the discussion on how do you know you are awake and not in a dream. (That is in a state as analogous to waking as is dreaming). How do you know for sure you are not in Plato's cave. How do you know that 3 dimensions is the end all and be all and not missing out stupendously just as a flatliner -- in a two dimensional existence -- is compared to our existence. The answer, -- was weak in my view. the answer being, imo, along the lines of being awake is a state of being and not a state of thought, And thus open KNOWS a state of being, a priori, no proof needed. In conversations with a number of my acid gulping friends and peers, an some experiences of my own, the consensus was similar: Being on good acid is a state of Being and its obvious that one is Awake compared to being straight. But how substantial was that state of being. Per above discussion. If it's transient, it's still binding, still a state of consciousness -- when it's no longer transient it is unmistakeable, essentially self-evident freedom eternally, across all states of consciousness :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this may be due to states of consciousness' being temporarily attained via external means, rather than fully understood in terms of the Self, which is beyond the various states. I have noticed enhancements of love, forgiveness, compassion, morality etc. as a result of more and more of my particles' dissolving into us -- my play is quite serious :-) -- so that *I* am pleased with me even if you may not be, as you intimate below :-) I am certainly not unpleased with you. Your posts and View is at times entertaining, at times stimulating new thoughts and perspectives in this cage. And I wish you the best with your particles an wholeness(s). But for me, it simply is not sufficiently impressive or appealing enough for me to gallop down what ever path would yield such. And if you find improvments in your life, then wonderful. And if those around you enjoy that improvement in you, then even more wonderful.
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: I think this may be due to states of consciousness' being temporarily attained via external means, rather than fully understood in terms of the Self, which is beyond the various states. I have noticed enhancements of love, forgiveness, compassion, morality etc. as a result of more and more of my particles' dissolving into us -- my play is quite serious :-) -- so that *I* am pleased with me even if you may not be, as you intimate below :-) I am certainly not unpleased with you. Your posts and View is at times entertaining, at times stimulating new thoughts and perspectives in this cage. And I wish you the best with your particles an wholeness (s). Thank you :-) To clarify, by pleased with me I mean pleased (beyond words) with my bodymind, which is to say, with the Universe I uphold -- which also includes my understanding of You :-) But for me, it simply is not sufficiently impressive or appealing enough for me to gallop down what ever path would yield such. No, it is imperative to find and follow your own path, of course, and to be true to your own goals -- how else can Self unfold itSelf to itSelf? :-) And if you find improvments in your life, then wonderful. And if those around you enjoy that improvement in you, then even more wonderful. It appears to be mutual, yes :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
Thanks for some excellent points and perspectives New! Nothing to add but a high five for being genuine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Yes, I have found as long as I am claiming C.C., G.C., or U.C., and Brahman has not yet claimed me, I am not fully liberated, and am still attached or bound to experience. Along these same lines, when you were asking about how we fall into ignorance, I find that consciousness *constantly* collapses into the particle, to experience the effect of our causative and innocent thought as a created being, to enter into the world of our own making. If the consciousness *believes* the particle-experience, or is caught in a given belief, it identifies with the concreteness of the effect and forgets the subtle simplicity of its own cause; it finds the bindu to be binding, and experiences the ignorance of the particle, or more accurately the particle's ignorance of the freedom of ourself, of That-Self. When we remember Oh, yes, this particle-experience is not me; it is only one infinitesimal particle in the emptiful, Indefinable, Ungraspable That-Self, then Brahman remembers itself, and acts as the Cosmic Consciousness of the particle -- and so on, as described earlier :-) With all due respect, and I mean that earnestly, and I am not presenting an argument -- but rather simply making some observations. In college, I took a course titled Altered States of Consciousness taught by Charles Tart -- who had written the definitive text on the topic at that time -- and was on the map as a key, if not the key researcher in such. He once commented that he had friends who took lots of very pure acid every weekend -- and had experiences described along the way Rory descibes his. And we all nodded -- having had firneds or peers along the same lines-- many of us coming of age before LSD was made illegal -- and some vials of very pure stuff was widely available. But he lamented, that these friends did not seem to benefit any from such experiences --as real as they seemed to be. They did not change behaviors, they did not produce deep new insights in their fields, they did not become more compassionate or reflecting any sort of moral or ethical growth. Tying to Danas post, he ask cogently, the same sorts of questions / observations of Dr Tart (Charlie to many on campus). Jim may be eternally free -- Rory plays with his particles, Tom has his hardrive loaded every morning by the cosmic computer. All of which is good and fine. But there is nothing either in their descriptions of their states, or their manifest behavior, insights, cognitive and logical capabilities etc that appeal much to me, inspire me to do anything to move in the direction of their attainments. Nor does it fit my evolving view of a meaningful life. See my adjacent post. And a side point, going back to posts of last week: the discussion on how do you know you are awake and not in a dream. (That is in a state as analogous to waking as is dreaming). How do you know for sure you are not in Plato's cave. How do you know that 3 dimensions is the end all and be all and not missing out stupendously just as a flatliner -- in a two dimensional existence -- is compared to our existence. The answer, -- was weak in my view. the answer being, imo, along the lines of being awake is a state of being and not a state of thought, And thus open KNOWS a state of being, a priori, no proof needed. In conversations with a number of my acid gulping friends and peers, an some experiences of my own, the consensus was similar: Being on good acid is a state of Being and its obvious that one is Awake compared to being straight. But how substantial was that state of being. Per above discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip And a side point, going back to posts of last week: the discussion on how do you know you are awake and not in a dream. (That is in a state as analogous to waking as is dreaming). How do you know for sure you are not in Plato's cave. How do you know that 3 dimensions is the end all and be all and not missing out stupendously just as a flatliner -- in a two dimensional existence -- is compared to our existence. The answer, -- was weak in my view. the answer being, imo, along the lines of being awake is a state of being and not a state of thought, And thus open KNOWS a state of being, a priori, no proof needed. I don't understand what thus open KNOWS means. In any case, the answer you cite wasn't to the question as you phrased it above about whether three dimensions are the end all and be all etc., etc.--that's your addition, and it isn't at all relevant to the point I was making. But obviously, if you think about it, there can be no other answer to the original question. In conversations with a number of my acid gulping friends and peers, an some experiences of my own, the consensus was similar: Being on good acid is a state of Being and its obvious that one is Awake compared to being straight. But how substantial was that state of being. Per above discussion. Different issue entirely. Maybe an interesting question on its own terms, but not relevant, again, to the point I was making.
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tying to Danas post, he ask cogently, the same sorts of questions / observations of Dr Tart (Charlie to many on campus). Jim may be eternally free -- Rory plays with his particles, Tom has his hardrive loaded every morning by the cosmic computer. All of which is good and fine. But there is nothing either in their descriptions of their states, or their manifest behavior, insights, cognitive and logical capabilities etc that appeal much to me, inspire me to do anything to move in the direction of their attainments. Nor does it fit my evolving view of a meaningful life. See my adjacent post. Good stuff, and thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like you have some expectation of an enlightened person's behavior that is not being met; the enlightened person's life isn't inspiring, or meaningful, or insightful...Or at least Rory, Tom's and mine isn't, to you. What in the cosmic computer's program says it has to be? Its like those albums we've all bought by our favorite artist because of that one great song we heard, and the rest of the album is unimpressive, at best. But the musician may have had a great time producing it. Oddly enough, once enlightenment occurs, there is nothing that is lacking in terms of appreciation; the full spectrum, from the Divine to the Devastating. Take my word for it. The fullness that is lived every single piece of each second has to be lived to be believed. And this creates then an endlessly meaningful life. Meaning is derived from experiencing something deeply, and once we have the potential to see and experience anything to any desired depth, from every possible point of view, meaning is truly everywhere. Perhaps that is inspiration enough; your desire for enlightenment, so that you can actually see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it, always.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for some excellent points and perspectives New! Nothing to add but a high five for being genuine. And the alternative would be being ...a giraffe?:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And a side point, going back to posts of last week: the discussion on how do you know you are awake and not in a dream. (That is in a state as analogous to waking as is dreaming). The answer, -- was weak in my view. the answer being, imo, along the lines of being awake is a state of being and not a state of thought, And thus open KNOWS a state of being, a priori, no proof needed. I have two more answers for this, but you probably won't care for either: How do you know for sure you are not in Plato's cave. How do you know that 3 dimensions is the end all and be all and not missing out stupendously just as a flatliner -- in a two dimensional existence -- is compared to our existence. 1. I have counted at this moment six dimensions that I can see; three conventional ones, like you see now, and three Divine ones, similar, and just as accessible, OR 2. Who cares? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Tying to Danas post, he ask cogently, the same sorts of questions / observations of Dr Tart (Charlie to many on campus). Jim may be eternally free -- Rory plays with his particles, Tom has his hardrive loaded every morning by the cosmic computer. All of which is good and fine. But there is nothing either in their descriptions of their states, or their manifest behavior, insights, cognitive and logical capabilities etc that appeal much to me, inspire me to do anything to move in the direction of their attainments. Nor does it fit my evolving view of a meaningful life. See my adjacent post. Good stuff, and thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like you have some expectation of an enlightened person's behavior that is not being met; the enlightened person's life isn't inspiring, or meaningful, or insightful...Or at least Rory, Tom's and mine isn't, to you. No thats not really my point. I have abondoned any expectations about enlightenment and behavioral component some time ago. And based on the slim response to my 32 potential points of enlightened behavior it seems not many are willing to take it that far. And as you may know from my prior posts, stretching back several years, I don't place much value in the label itself. ... And this creates then an endlessly meaningful life. Meaning is derived from experiencing something deeply, and once we have the potential to see and experience anything to any desired depth, from every possible point of view, meaning is truly everywhere. Thats a possibility. Thanks for the perspective. Perhaps that is inspiration enough; your desire for enlightenment, so that you can actually see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it, always.:-) The desire is gone. Its not an expectation. Its not a goal. If anything, loving what IS here and now is more interesting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: conversation with Dana Sawyer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Tying to Danas post, he ask cogently, the same sorts of questions / observations of Dr Tart (Charlie to many on campus). Jim may be eternally free -- Rory plays with his particles, Tom has his hardrive loaded every morning by the cosmic computer. All of which is good and fine. But there is nothing either in their descriptions of their states, or their manifest behavior, insights, cognitive and logical capabilities etc that appeal much to me, inspire me to do anything to move in the direction of their attainments. Nor does it fit my evolving view of a meaningful life. See my adjacent post. Good stuff, and thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like you have some expectation of an enlightened person's behavior that is not being met; the enlightened person's life isn't inspiring, or meaningful, or insightful...Or at least Rory, Tom's and mine isn't, to you. No thats not really my point. I have abondoned any expectations about enlightenment and behavioral component some time ago. And based on the slim response to my 32 potential points of enlightened behavior it seems not many are willing to take it that far. And as you may know from my prior posts, stretching back several years, I don't place much value in the label itself. ... And this creates then an endlessly meaningful life. Meaning is derived from experiencing something deeply, and once we have the potential to see and experience anything to any desired depth, from every possible point of view, meaning is truly everywhere. Thats a possibility. Thanks for the perspective. Perhaps that is inspiration enough; your desire for enlightenment, so that you can actually see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it, always.:-) The desire is gone. Its not an expectation. Its not a goal. If anything, loving what IS here and now is more interesting. Glad to hear it! Anyway, thanks for the discussion.:-)
