Hi, Share! Thanks for your welcome! Yes, I left here before you joined, and now after quite a long hiatus I am inspired to post again after hearing from Alex that "freedom" is returning -- albeit provisionally -- to FFL. Even so, I don't have much seniority here, compared to a lot of the real old-timers. I started posting here sometime around 2004, and in many respects it was FFL -- and the great people I met here -- which drew me physically back to Fairfield in 2005 to meet them in person and, it turns out, to stay, more or less permanently.
Sure, Brahman must be a Gemini, and everything else, too! "On the other hand..." :-) *L*L*L* R. --- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Rory! Yay! Has the anticipation of Totally Unlimited Posting (TUP) lured you > back to the Funny Farm Lounge? To stay? Actually I think you left before I > joined but we've been on a couple of other forums at the same time. Hey, I > bet you got seniority here. Hmmm... > Anyway, I love what you say below, it resonates, especially that bit about > paradoxes and self contradicting. Maybe Brahman is a Gemini (-: > > > > > ________________________________ > From: RoryGoff <rorygoff@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 9:09 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion > > > > Â > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
