--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > "Thought, if we learn to observe it, is a reaction-mechanism > > devoid of true consciousness. It is the inertia of our > > conditioning that we fail to truly question." > > > > David Frawley > > While true on one level, this is a declaration made > on the basis of a value judgment. An assumption that > Frawley not only makes but fails to challenge is > "thought is NOT 'true consciousness.'" > > Step back from that assumption, and deal with the > possibility that thought is NOT the antithesis of > 'true consciousness,' but merely another aspect of > it, and it's a whole other story. > > Can you deal with that, John? Can you honestly state > that your moments of no-thought in "transcendence" > have NO "higher" or "better" significance than your > moments of thought? > > If you cannot, then your life is ruled by dogma. > > The "wish to believe," not the "will to find out." > > Just sayin'... > Barry,
It appears to me that one has to define what is "true consciousness". After it's defined, then it would not seem reasonable to say both true and not true consciousness are true at the same time. Isn't that correct?
