You know of course her mother was human, but her father was Pandorian. That hasn't escaped you I presume.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@...> wrote: > > ...I'd have to deal with the pet first.... > http://www.fantasygallery.net/bader/art_0_bamboo-Forest.html > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Are you sure you don't mean this Kwan? > > > > http://www.usa-hero.com/kwan_michelle.html > > <http://www.usa-hero.com/kwan_michelle.html> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > Interesting idea...thx for mentioning it; though I prefer Goddesses > > such as Kwan Yin....; ymmv > > > http://www.mykwanyin.com/images/00kuan_yin_1_.jpg > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we take our own future enlightenment as our ishta-devataa > > > > (meditation deity) in this lifetime? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the definitions of final enlightenment (samyak.sam.bodhi) is > > > > omniscience (sarva-jñana) and supremacy over all states of > > existence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patanjali Yoga Sutra 3.49 says: > > > > > > > > Only one discerning (khaati) the difference (anyataa) between > > purusha > > > > and sattva gains supremacy (adhi.staat.rtva) over all states > > (bhaava) > > > > and all-knowingness (sarvajñaat.rtva). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Buddha is said to be omniscient, but only in the limited sense > > that > > > > although he can see whatever he chooses, he does not perceive > > everything > > > > simultaneously, but must turn his mind to whatever it is he wants to > > > > perceive. Thus in the Theravada tradition, the Buddha denies that > > anyone > > > > can see everything in a single act of cognition (ekachaitanyam). > > > > However, one of the signal events of a Buddha's enlightenment is > > > > direct perception of his own past lives. This means he is not bound > > by > > > > the conventional ideas of separation between the past, the present > > and > > > > future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the obvious question: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the future, in your fully enlightened state, are you looking at > > > > yourself right at this very "moment"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering this ultimate universal-supremacy and omniscience, can > > you > > > > take yourself as your own ishta-devatta, as that one who transforms > > you > > > > into Tad-Ekam or "That One"? Not some airy-fairy "higher > > > > self" but in the immediacy and directness of this present awareness? > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > >
