Ha! Paternal sweetness on a schtick!
--- In [email protected], doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, confusing, I know...Perhaps I can explain it this way, by saying that
> later today I will be seeing my daughter, and in so doing, becoming a
> popsicle!!
>
> --- In [email protected], "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote:
> >
> > Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > *L*L*L*
> >
> > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome!
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Jim! Thanks! Glad to be back; it's good to see you. But now I am
> > > > confused; I thought I was a wavicle! :-)
> > > >
> > > > *L*L*L*
> > > >
> > > > R.
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
