Judy Stein - The Self

<snip>

If the therapist at this point recommends stopping meditation, further development of cosmic consciousness ceases, and one may become "stuck" in the transitional state and never progress beyond it.

George DeForest:
I agree with everything Judy says above, except for one quibble over saying "early in this developement". I think this problem could arise at any time, in fact my opinion is, it is more likely to arise in the final stages of developement to CC.

Judy Stein:
I didn't make myself clear. By "early in this development" I  meant early in CC, not early in the development from ignorance to  CC. I'm suggesting the problem tends to occur while the CC  experience is still "new."

Letting go of one's familiar "self" may be the last (and toughest) stress to overcome. Some of the "depersonalized" on the Trancenet site were once zealously, perhaps excessively, involved in a total "meditation" lifestyle. They were not "beginners"...they moved ahead so fast, they arrived at the edge of the abyss too suddenly, panicked and drew back.

Right. I don't know that this *only* happens with those who are immersed in a "total meditation lifestyle," though. I suspect it also happens with people who aren't really thinking much about development of consciousness, just meditating on a regular basis because of the benefits in activity.

It should also be said that those in a "total meditation lifestyle" who panic at CC experiences haven't been paying attention to what Maharishi teaches about the nature of CC. There are even several mentions in his Gita commentary about the potential problems involved. Knowing *why* there is discomfort isn't going to eliminate the discomfort itself, but it should be enough to keep one from panicking, and *especially* from deciding TM is a Bad Thing.

<snip>

Also, as I understand it, the fully developed, stable state of cosmic consciousness, although it is *apparently* dual in the sense of separation of self and Self, is not experienced as fragmented.

My understanding is that when the "self" realizes its Fullness in cosmic consciousness, it *becomes* the Self.

But the self is not what realizes the Self. MMY says, "The Self unfolds itself by itself, for itself, to itself," or words to that effect. One's *identification* changes from the self to the Self; one no longer identifies with the self at all. I think there may be a difference in the way we're using the term "self." By "self," I don't mean what one identifies with. The self per se is incapable of realizing anything but fragmentation; it is only the Self which realizes wholeness.

The duality is with everything outside, between the Self and non-Self.

Right, and the self is non-Self (in cosmic consciousness).

The Self is not fragmented (as the self was), however it is non-attatched and seperate from outside things. As the fullness of the Self becomes realized also in outside things, the sense of seperation is overcome in Unity consciousness, where everything is seen experientially as it really is, non-dual.

Right. But this is always in terms of the Self, not of the self
per se.

Actually, though, as I tried to suggest above, it's not the case that "reality is split into two" in the cosmic consciousness state of enlightenment Rather, reality is experienced as one, but it has two *aspects*, Absolute and relative, Self and self, Purusha and Prakriti, which are apparently mutually exclusive but which are self-evidently both the case.

I would make the same correction here, to equate
Absolute/Inner/Self with Relative/Outer/non-Self.
The "self" is gone, by definition, in cosmic consciousness.

*Identification* with the self is gone in cosmic consciousness.
The self is still very much present. You could say it is the
internal aspect of non-Self. One still is aware of one's
thoughts and emotions and sensations, but they are experienced as
not the Self. One no longer identifies with them.

The darkness is replaced by the light. Enlightened.
It has seen itself to be cosmic, it is now the Self, Absolute.

George, I think this is incorrectly stated. The self never sees
itself to be the Self; rather the Self sees the self to be the
Self (in Unity consciousness).

Indeed, this is the reason why early CC experiences can be so
confusing. The self is trying to figure out what's going on, but
what is going on makes no sense to the self. Once the switch to
identification with the Self is complete and stabilized, there is
no longer any need for the self to do any figuring, so that
tension ceases to be a factor.

The self may continue to play with the ideas involved, but it's
just the gunas interacting; there's no longer anything compulsive
about it, and the Self merely witnesses this activity. That the
"mistake of the intellect" has been overcome doesn't mean the
intellect ceases to function; it just ceases to run the show.

It's only the self that parses and figures and tries to
understand, but it can never understand or experience wholeness;
that isn't its nature (even in Unity consciousness). That's the
Advaita paradox. Unity is One without a second--but if Unity
didn't include duality, duality would be a second. Unity does
not exclude or negate duality.

What is still (before Unity) "relative" and ever-changing is everything around you, the arena of activity, the world.

Including the self! "Activity" shouldn't be thought to involve
only *external* activity. Thinking, reflecting, having emotions
are also activity and therefore (before Unity) non-Self.

<snip>

An enlightened human being is fully human and fully integrated.

Right. However, to the unenlightened, this may or may not be apparent because the unenlightened aren't themselves fully integrated, and therefore their standards may be off.

This, I suggest, is the big problem at the Trancenet site. Disgruntled former meditators who tasted spirituality, but having quit too soon, are "stuck in a transitional state" (as Judy mentioned above), and thus are not enlightened enough to evaluate
Maharishi's enlightened teachings correctly. They would go to any lengths, however, to portray it badly.

Well, but there have been plenty of TMers who understood the
teachings well enough prior to even reaching the transitional
state not to be thrown when they finally did reach it. MMY's
teachings are so *clear*. Of course one cannot fully
"understand" the nature of enlightenment until one is
experiencing it, but MMY's descriptions are complete and detailed
enough that one shouldn't be totally at sea.

I think in the case of the Trancenet folks, it's a matter, as I
suggested, of not having paid attention--of having formed their
own private ideas of what enlightenment would be like and being
unwilling to question those ideas when confronted with the
reality.

I've said before I think the organization should do more to make
expert counseling available to people who are experiencing
discomfort in the transitional state, rather than simply brushing
it off as "unstressing." By the same token, I suspect that if
one were persistent, one would be able to find the necessary
guidance in most cases. It's just more difficult than it should
be.