--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you > > > > can't imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being > > > > true, then you are stuck in in that boundary. > > > > > > > > The point of my kidding has been, "Can you imagine yourself > > > > as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of?" > > > > > > Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine > > > that I am eternally free. > > > > But of course you don't have that choice. "Your" imagination It is > > only that abstract anthropomorphic "Nature" that imagines what it > > wants and you are only the humble servant. Right? > > > > > I can certainly imagine myself to be in > > > prison, but I choose not to. > > > > But if that abstract anthropomorphic "Nature" imagines you in > > prison, per its inscrutable and abstract needs, then "you" will > > imagine you are in prison. > > > > Or are you saying you are not the instrument of the Divine and the > > Divine's imagination? I thought you just did in a prior post. > > "Whether we like it or not (lol) we become agents of the Divine." > > > > Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you have the > > choice to imagine? > > > > Can you imagine that you are not the instrument of the Divine? > > > > Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are > > enlightened? > > > > Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are > > enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic "Nature" imagines > > that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines > > that actually you are not? > > > > For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your > > thought of enlightenment, > > > > Is it true? > > > > Can you absolutely know that it's true? > > > > How do you react when you think that thought? > > > > Who would you be without the thought? > > > > Can you turn it around? > > > > (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite > > of your original statement and see what you are without your > > (original) thought) > > > > Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those > > "ignirant" souls who are not as enlightened as you? > > I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical > questions. I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every > one of them by yourself.:-)
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what new.morning was getting at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to "do the work" on your assumption that you're enlightened. So far, the answer is no. You don't seem to be *able* to challenge that assumption, or question it in any way. It's a given, a "story" that you believe so thoroughly that you refuse to question it even theoretically. I get the feeling that what new.morning is suggesting is that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when some who promote Byron Katie's techniques for anal- yzing one's "stories" (although I don't remember you having done that, Jim) refuse to analyze their own story of enlightenment, or even *consider the possi- bility* that it might not be true. Did I get that right, new? You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
