<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- sparaig <sparaig@> wrote:
> > There's no "side effect" to CC: its just the brain
> > better maintaining the global connectivity
> > of Pure Consciousness along with the normal
> > activation of various states whether major
> > states like waking, dreaming and sleeping, or
> > localized activiations like paying attention to
> > music, thought or pain or pleasure.
>
>
> > > > --- Peter wrote:
> CC is the realization of "one's" identity as pure
> consciousness. It is not a state of mind, nor does it
> have anything to do with brain function. Brain
> function has to do with states of mind. CC/realization
> has nothing to do with any aspect of the body. Nothing
> supports it. All creation is inside it. It is utterly
> and completely independent of any boundary.
>
>
> > --- jim_flanegin <jflanegi@> wrote:
> >
> > > The *realization* of CC does not depend on the
> > > things you mention.
> > > However, the things you mention are necessary to
> > > build the
> > > foundation for CC, until CC is realized. Then it no
> > > longer matters.
>
> > > > --- Peter wrote:
> > I would add that the only change that can occur is in
> > the relative. Thus all the techniques for
> > "enlightenment" are actually misnomers. They are
> > techniques that refine, purify, clarify relative
> > aspects of mind that bring you to the doorstep of
> > realization. The shift from a bound self to a
> > non-localized Self is pure acausal grace that can not
> > be enacted from the side of the bound mind.
>
> An interesting dialogue. Perhaps its a matter that somethings are
> beyond logic and words. But since you are using words and logic
above,
> it would appear reasonable to expect the same such in your points.
> (Though I am open to why some of the above should be bound by logic
> and other parts not.)
>
> Re:
> "bring you to the doorstep of
> realization."
>
> "the things you mention are necessary to
> build the
> foundation for CC, until CC is realized."
>
> That "CC/realization has nothing to do with any aspect of the body.
> Nothing supports it" would imply that neither doorsteps nor
> foundations are necessary for IT. Nor for the realization of IT --
if
> the latter acutally is a distinction of significance.
Right.
>
> Though the "loophole" may be that IT is a catalytic type
phenomenon.
> The catalyst is required for the "reaction", but disappears and is
not
> required for the new state.
Ed Zackerly. The realization of IT is completely independent of any
steps we may take up until that point.
>
> Or perhaps "bootstrapping" is apt description. IT Itself pulls
ITself
> into ITs realization.
Ed Zackerly.
>
> Whether catalytic or bootstrpped, the process still a temporal
> phenomenon, "IT was not and then IT was". That seems utterly
> inconsistant with the view that "It is utterly and completely
> independent of any boundary." Certainly if that is so, it must not
be
> bound by temporal processes.
Its not about "IT was not and then IT was". IT always was-- we just
didn't see IT before, or IT didn't allow itself to be seen before.
>
> And, IMO, its not a matter of, paraphrasing past points, "the
relative
> mind will never be able to conceptualize this ... so stop day
dreaming
> and hypothesing what IT is like". Its a matter of describing an
> experience everyone has to some degree -- consciousness being alive
> within itself.
Right. Everyone has the experience to one degree or another. And
then we have the total experience, the total surrender- IT reveals
itself to IT.
>
> Perhaps variations and imperfections of the "experience" of IT,
> consciousness being alive within itself explains some of the
logical
> discrpency.
Ed Zackerly. Variations. Analagous to all rivers being made of
flowing water, but each one unique due to the landscape. The water
in every case though is H2O (ache-to-Oh!).
IT certainly feels like IT is self-sufficient as if it has
> nothing to do with any aspect of the body, that nothing
> supports it. But are other interpretations possible? Such as, IT
could
> absolutely feel like that, but indeed also have some physiological
> correlates? (which raises the issue are correlates simply
similtaneous
> phenomenon, or causative?)
Either no physiological corrrelates OR all phsiological correlates
are the only two choices; either the infinity of all or the infinity
of nothing.
>
> Or, perhaps discussion of IT is a matter that is in all cases
beyond
> logic and words.
Discussion isn't, but ultimate definition is. Unless we include all
of the words that exist, in our definition...
If so then it can be said that none of the points in
> the above posts are true and/or not true.
All of the points in the above posts that you refer to are true for
IT. If we don't recognize ourselves as wholly IT, we recognize their
truth to the degree that we recognize ourselves as IT.
In such a "realm", it would
> seem quite arbitrary to give some statements discretionary
importance
> and claims of (universal ?) truth over another.
Only if WE are making such distinctions. However that is not the
case. If consciousness is alive within itself, and we are awake to
the fact that we are only consciousness alive within itself, then it
is the consciousness alone making such 'arbitrary' decisions.
And in such a realm,
> any discussion that includes IT would be meaniningless and
jibberish.
>
No, consciousness clearly knows and understands itself. If we are
not awake to the fact that we are completely just pure
consciousness, then to the degree we don't know that, any discussion
of consciousness with itself will appear to us to be meaningless and
jibberish...
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
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
