Guest guest Posted May 5, 1999 Report Share Posted May 5, 1999 Madhya, Apparently my first post didn't make it to the list. Hotmail has been doing that lately. I had just posted a response to you and then read Tim's response which was more clear. Mine may show up next week, but I'll address what you've posted here although it appears to be so much semantics and I'm a bit tired. First, transcendence as in pure awareness is without an observer/experiencer. yes, I know that doesn't sound logical, but it's so. Immanence brings that awareness into a particular personality/incarnation and by default brings with it interpretation of the true self. The interpretations are a reflection. none of us will get it right in explaining it, especially me. My first response to your post was simply that it is not a state of consciousness as we would normally define state. It simply is and what it is, if I can make my best interpretation, is pure awareness itself. No Tamra about. Awareness is. Shiva knows. The seeker is the seeking and the one sought and there never was another. >Tamra, Tim--? > >I'm not certain of the source of the post quoting the above. There was no >misunderstanding if you will read the original post that I quoted and >replied to. The issue raised was whether a 'state' or some such ...? >exists >that is entirely independent from the rest of consciousness. It's not independent of. There is not a separation as that implies, but the interpretation which fragments consciousness into states is no longer present. It is pure. I responded by >stating my view that only one consciousness exists. Your term, 'different' >makes a bit more sense to me, for absolute awareness is, in a sense, >'different' from waking, slleeping and dreaming, etc. However, absolute >consciousness--in my view, of course-- and the view of Kashmir Shaivism, is >still present in and indeed, IS all of these other states. Ok. > >I also do not concur with the view that can ever "be there without there >being someone there to be conscious" There is no such anything as >consciousless consciousness. That's why I prefer the term awareness. There is absolutely no individual self present to be conscious in any sense of the term that I ever used. I use conscousness as particularizing and identifying. Awareness (as I use the term) is different than that. Someone must always be present, and in my >view, that someone is ME. All of us ME's, that is. For, in my view, only >one ME exists and is at once all of consciousness. Not my experience > >All mystical experience, all transcendental experiences occur from a >perspective. There is no such perspective as a perspectiveless >perspective. yes there is. > >Another difficulty that arises with a belief in 'absolute >transcendentalism' >is that persons will misunderstandingly believe that that transcendent >state >can somehow co-exist with one's manifest consciousness and remain somehow >pristine and pure. I agree here. Although the transcendent and immanent do indeed coexist, the transcendent uses or particularizes the immanent. I use these hands, this mind, these thoughts, all my bad spelling and grammar, and I don't speak Latin. Immanent is not the same, yet identification with the immanent is no longer possible in the same way. Physical fatigue, however, is now immanent and I'm going to bed. Tamra _____________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 1999 Report Share Posted May 5, 1999 ---------- >"Tamra Temple" <teatemple > >Re: Madhya - Digest Number 146, reply to jb >Wed, May 5, 1999, 12:19 PM > >"Tamra Temple" <teatemple > > >> >>You've misunderstood. >Oh if only I had been patient and read all of the emails first. Well said, >Tim. >Tamra Tamra, Tim--? I'm not certain of the source of the post quoting the above. There was no misunderstanding if you will read the original post that I quoted and replied to. The issue raised was whether a 'state' or some such ...? exists that is entirely independent from the rest of consciousness. I responded by stating my view that only one consciousness exists. Your term, 'different' makes a bit more sense to me, for absolute awareness is, in a sense, 'different' from waking, slleeping and dreaming, etc. However, absolute consciousness--in my view, of course-- and the view of Kashmir Shaivism, is still present in and indeed, IS all of these other states. I also do not concur with the view that can ever "be there without there being someone there to be conscious" There is no such anything as consciousless consciousness. Someone must always be present, and in my view, that someone is ME. All of us ME's, that is. For, in my view, only one ME exists and is at once all of consciousness. Much misunderstanding exists, I believe, regarding what kinds of mystical experiences are possible, and the nature of these experiences. Philosophically, some schools say, the 'doer' doesn't exist. But who witnesses the doing? Certainly, it is possible to recondition consciousnes in such a manner as to lose the sense of awareness of being separate--to experience neither inside nor outside, only one 'big' head where everything is occurring. Still, I am the one who is experiencing that consciousness. That I, as I stated above, may not be a separate 'I', but it is an 'I', nonetheless. All mystical experience, all transcendental experiences occur from a perspective. There is no such perspective as a perspectiveless perspective. If one were to have an out of the body experience, one would still view from a perspective, the body and world that one had 'transcended', so to speak. What is universal and absolute is that 'I' is the nature of all consciousness. 'I' is not a negative condition, but a positive one. Another difficulty that arises with a belief in 'absolute transcendentalism' is that persons will misunderstandingly believe that that transcendent state can somehow co-exist with one's manifest consciousness and remain somehow pristine and pure. No such transcendent experience exists, in my view. All mystical experiences, including experiences of a transcendent nature, must occur in the given context o the person who is experiencing them. This does not mean that the transcendent experience is not absolute or true. It simply means that the experience cannot occur absolutely 'outside' of or 'apart' from the consciousness of the conditioned viewer. People have transcendental experiences. Madhya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 1999 Report Share Posted May 5, 1999 Madhya, thank you for this! Especially for the "only one 'big' head where everything is occurring." You've found the descriptive words I was scrambling for. As for transcendent experiences happening to people, I've been wondering for awhile about subtle differences I think I detect between the spiritual biographies of men and women. I wasn't sure if I was just projecting my own experiences as I read -- the transcendent experience is supposed to be beyond gender, right? But after reading your post I'm thinking about this again, whether the personhood (including the cultural conditioning), especially in a written account, can be totally bypassed. As a seeker this has meaning to me because when I try to leap out of my femaleness prematurely I get into trouble. Holly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.