--- In [email protected], wmurphy77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" > > > > <jpgillam@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We've had a half-dozen contributors to this list > > > > > who profess to be functioning from Brahman. > > > > > I've read that the larger Fairfield community has > > > > > a dozen or so who've awakened. MUM says it's > > > > > doing research on a dozen or so people in CC. > > > > > I get the impression that "seven lifetimes" stuff > > > > > may apply to some of us, but it's likely an old > > > > > rule that no longer applies. > > > > > > > > It also is a "rule" that shows a remarkable > > > > ignorance of Eastern thought. Within many > > > > Asian traditions, it is considered a given > > > > that one has to have logged *tens of thousands* > > > > of incarnations, many of them human, just to > > > > get to the point where one is attracted to > > > > spiritual practice. > > > > > > I was under the impression that the clock on the > > > "seven lifetimes" rule Patrick is referring to > > > started ticking *at* the point where one is > > > attracted to spiritual practice. > > > > > > In other words, once you start the practice, it > > > takes seven lifetimes to become enlightened. So > > > it only comes into effect *after* the lifetimes > > > in the rule you cite have taken place. Tens of > > > thousands of incarnations to get to the point > > > where one is attracted to spiritual practice, > > > seven lifetimes thereafter to become realized. > > > > > The 'rule' if that is in fact what it is, also works if we > transcend > > our way through the 7 states of consciousness, seeing each one as a > > lifetime. Then it only takes one lifetime. > > Sorry Jim, but the definition of 'lifetime' in this context is > approx. 100 years OR 7 Reincarnations, please keep the conversation > with the context of which it was intended. > > YOu would be correct if you were talking about the Gita where MMY > talks about many 'births' to realize Being, that is death to > materiality and Resurrection in Spirit and back being ONE birth, but > this is NOT what Charlie was suggesting. BillyG. > No need for sorry. I'm not saying the interpretation should be one or the other. As I said earlier, it is a very arbitrary, and not a very useful equation, imo.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
