--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > > You know of course her mother was human, but her father was Pandorian.
For whatever reason the human gene has always been dominant to the Pandorian one. Not sure why. We see this all the time. > 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? > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
