I know we have had something much like this conversation before, Lawson, but everything spirals, doesn't it? So here we are again, for the first time!
In my experience, anyhow, and that of most people I know well here in Fairfield, the criteria for CC are entirely lost in UC and especially BC, which though utterly indescribable is in many respects identical to ignorance. Duality doesn't really predominate. Separation vs. Unity is gone; inner vs. outer is gone; I vs. thou is gone; absolute vs. relative is gone; rest vs. activity is gone; suffering vs. ecstasy is gone; even permanence vs. impermanence is gone. In a sense, for true permanence to acknowledge itself, the addiction to growth through various states of consciousness is recognized for the illusion it is and transcended. To be timeless, we simply stop believing we are in any real sense subject to time. BC, our ordinary state of being, is a priori, and paradoxical, and can be quite confusing -- as it is and always has been the status quo, prior to the story-making faculty of the intellect itself -- and probably requires an intellectual AhA for the intellect to even recognize It, or Us. It is quite possible for someone to be "in" BC -- as we all really are, anyhow -- and not even acknowledge It or Us because one thinks one is still "losing" CC! Believing in the wave rather than the ocean, as It Is, or believing in the story rather than the storyteller! :-) Also in my experience, all the states of consciousness are not fixed and permanent, but are merely teaching tools, shifting lenses to view the single wholeness we have always been. We don;t need to keep experiencing a particular state forever; we need only truly appreciate it once, and then we are on to something new. New "states" continue to unfold from different viewpoints as we move into ignorance and suffering again and again and enlighten ourselves again and again in different ways through different bodies. This surely contradicts what I said above about the permanent timelessness of BC.... but BC is paradoxical, and contains all opposites. What I say would certainly not be true if it didn't immediately contradict itself! Love, Light and Laughter Always, R. --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > That might be, but the criteria for having some degree CC isn't perfect > silence, but just never losing PC while engaged in activity. > > L. > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > Lawson, > > > > It all depends on what is your definition of cosmic consciousness. But > > having a noisy mind appears to be an indication of an inertia due to having > > a conditioned mind. What do you think? > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > Well, "putting" one's mind into silence sounds a bit contrived, to me. > > > > > > Someone in CC doesn't necessarily have a quiet mind. In fact, someone in > > > CC might have a very noisy mind -- conceivably even noisier than before > > > they "attained" CC -- though the trend should be towards more silence > > > over time, or such is my understanding. > > > > > > L > > > > > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > David needs to speak for himself. There is not necessarily a "we", in > > > > his comment. > > > > > > > > Thought is the *only* reason Mr. Frawley, and you, John, are able to > > > > share this piece of spinach with us. The engineers that developed this > > > > technology of communication, needed to think deeply, and continuously, > > > > to put this together. > > > > > > > > If I may hazard a guess, David F. has just discovered that 90% of his > > > > thoughts are useless energy and momentum, spent maintaining a story. It > > > > is a common, though by no means, universal malady. > > > > > > > > Once he sees this, perhaps Dave can put his mind into silence, and > > > > simply recognize the Divine utility of thought - the other 10%. In the > > > > meantime, his projecting isn't helping. > > > > > > > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
