"You said it. I concur. But that's the only thing worthwhile, essential and obligatory, we need to give to ourself."
Same self-presentational style as Mr Teflon: Yes. > Yes. > But ... (me-me-me) On 30 Jan., 09:27, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 30, 12:28 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The last line is pertinent Vam. I was barred from politics as a cop > > and looked forward to participating and thought Blair was a fresh > > voice. I knew I'd made a mistake by the time I cast my ballot in the > > Labour leadership elections. You are right that it is now very > > obvious that Blair is lying. I don't know how much you see of the > > other Labour 'top-turds' Vam, but they are now all the same. What you > > don't seem to grok is that this committee of enquiry is not taking > > place - it is the lie. > > I watch CNN and BBC World occasionally. While watching the cross > questioning yesterday it was clear to me that the spearheading > committee member was for real ... the questions were the ones I would > ask, and persist with where they lead to. The ' poodling ' conduct of > Blair, his clear vested interest of some kind or other, not defined, > his lack of anything close to wisdom and statesmanship, not logical > and rational for the position he occupied, in and for UK and in and > for the world ... all of that was plain and reflected as much in > Blair's upset, clueless, mental processes as in his dry throat and > parched lips ! > > Perhaps, he might still be dragged away in chains, and if not, our > attention would be focused on the back - scratching politics > everywhere ... giving a clear area on which people like you and I > should work at unravelling and displacing. That, you and I may not be > in a position to do anything about it is really of no consequence. If > we continue to hold the right focus, others will emerge and step up, > in time. > > We actually do a disservice to ourself, belying our truths, when we go > overboard and hyperbole, except when it leads to alround joy, mirth > and laughter ! > > > Much scientific research has been done on dreaming and its frankly > > rather dull. Depending on mood and circumstances, my mind can be like > > a cinema sweeping across the universe. > > Indeed. You. The I, and all it carries. > > > I find it more difficult these > > days to separate dreaming and reality (thought of as the world where I > > have a bank account). > > Might it be that they are not really different at all ! ? Reality>>> Bank > Account >>> Finance >>> Money >>> Dreams ... > > Reality, as we know, is so much the stuff of our Dreams. > > > Day dreaing and noodling time are more > > important than most realise as they thrust about doing nothing much > > importantly. My only real quibble about this material is that I > > generally find that quite ordinary evidence is what we need to live > > closer to the truth and we can't dream that up. The issue is whether > > focusing into dreams is exploration or just running away to hide > > (which isn't necessarily bad or cowardly, but can be). > > I see this so - called Reality, the I, these explorations and running > away, all of it is of the stuff of our dreams. This Reality is within > a Dream and there are dreams within this reality. We think as we are > and we are as we think ! > > God is the Dreamer of this Reality, just as we are of ours. > > The supreme fact is the One, within which all that and this is > happening. That's the ontology, without religion. > > > We are very bad at working out who is telling the truth - almost > > everyone fails even simple tests. In times of deception, Orwell said, > > to tell the truth is a great risk. > > What's the lament ? Let's just know the truth before thinking up > consequences or what to do with it. I assume your agreement with : > KNOW THE TRUTH = LIVE THE TRUTH. > > > We may confuse ourselves by > > thinking we can listen with our hearts, but the truth is that we are > > usually to frightened to say what needs to be said. > > But, what would you say if you discover that we are not frightened to > say what needs to be said ... it is just that we do not yet know what > is to be said, followed by the where and how ! > > > It actually takes > > a lot of hard work to see the truth, or even to see one's own dreams > > for many. > > You said it. I concur. But that's the only thing worthwhile, essential > and obligatory, we need to give to ourself. > > > > > On 29 Jan, 16:10, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ash, that's one point of view I understand ! > > > > Neil has railed against Blair, even against the public, including > > > himself, who couldn't know when he was lying ! I found that to be a > > > lie, after hearing Blair before the ' commission.' He was palpably > > > revealing all his lies. > > > > So, why was Neil revealing Britons as being as stupid as he projected > > > Blair to be ? > > > > In fact, the committee member, the chief who was riling Blair with his > > > questions, was a friend ( of mine ) in truth, as I saw him. > > > > Was it because Neil was limiting himself, to a scientific temper, when > > > all we have to do is to listen with our heart in its right place ! > > > > In fact, I am angry at having been led to the wrong view by someone > > > I'd felt is capable enough not to lie ! ? But Neil's view of Britons, > > > in respect of Blair / Bush, was a lie. If not, this committee and > > > enquiry would not have taken place ! > > > > Perhaps, Neil was merely ( over ) compensating for having been taken > > > for a ride ( by Blair ) ! > > > > On Jan 29, 12:05 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I recall a friend recommending yoga and lucid dreaming, but never saw > > > > the application or perhaps need that I do today. It cost me sleep but I > > > > had to read it, thanks Orn! > > > > > Many sciences influence my worldview(s) they are not the only thing, > > > > though I have been known to ex-pand/pound greatly on the philosophy and > > > > meaning of science. In that sense I may be tempted to use terms like > > > > scientism but that would incorrectly align myself with many of the > > > > alternatives. No offense taken Vam, I can appreciate the sentiment. One > > > > of my favorite sayings, "I'm one of those people who can understand and > > > > rationalize almost any point of view, but often piss everyone off when > > > > proposing my own." > > > > > On 1/29/2010 1:35 AM, Vamadevananda wrote: > > > > > > This is great, fundamental stuff ! > > > > > > I related the same method to experiences one is invited to through > > > > > stages described in the Tibetan Book of The Dead, while reading it a > > > > > long time ago. > > > > > > But, I am afraid, this is not what scientists and empiricists would be > > > > > able to appreciate, on account of limitations they have conditioned > > > > > themselves to. As a result, they might find it too uncomfortable, even > > > > > daunting, barring exceptions ! > > > > > > On Jan 29, 10:49 am, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> We have discussed this topic before; however, here Alan presents a > > > > >> very cogent and insightful view of lucid dreaming and dream yoga. > > > > >> Does > > > > >> this help with any of your personal > > > > >> insights?http://www.tricycle.com/feature/3652-1.html?page=0,0 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
