Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Thanks, John. I've taken a quick look at this and it looks really good. But I think I'm gonna have to watch it in three parts. Something interesting I've heard about inertia in the physiology, there's a Sanskrit term for it which I don't remember but it refers to the resistance of the body to releasing stress, or to putting itself in situations wherein it can release stress. I'm not describing it very elegantly but it's something along these lines. From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: John, actually the word inertia suggests a dull mind to me, one under the influence of tamas guna. Whereas the phrase noisy mind suggests one having more of a rajasic tendency. I think conditioning could give rise to either situation and that situation could be ever changing depending on one's prakriti or inherent nature, which I bet can be seen in the jyotish chart. My guess is that those with kapha constitution would be relatively stable if a bit leaning in the dull direction. Pitta people would tend to rajasic minds. I think restful alertness is a great solution, infinite dynamism balanced by infinite silence. Maharishi explained that between these two arises infinite wakefulness. Share, Your points are excellent. I'm also thinking of inertia as prakriti or attachment to all of the doshas in the human physiology. But I was watching this discussion of imminent scientists relating to the universe as a hologram. This may be the ultimate inertia for everything in the universe. You may find this enjoyable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsbZT9bJ1s4 From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion  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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Share, I'd say that lady astrologer is one mighty smart person! :) She essentially stated some of the things I mentioned here on the forum. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: John, a friend sent me this info on the new prince's chart. Thought you might enjoy. http://www.jyotishstar.com/hrh-prince-george-august-2013.html From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 While true on one level, this is a declaration made on the basis of a value judgment. An assumption that Frawley not only makes but fails to challenge is thought is NOT 'true consciousness.' Step back from that assumption, and deal with the possibility that thought is NOT the antithesis of 'true consciousness,' but merely another aspect of it, and it's a whole other story. Can you deal with that, John? Can you honestly state that your moments of no-thought in transcendence have NO higher or better significance than your moments of thought? If you cannot, then your life is ruled by dogma. The wish to believe, not the will to find out. Just sayin'... Barry, It appears to me that one has to define what is true consciousness.  After it's defined, then it would not seem reasonable to say both true and not true consciousness are true at the same time.  Isn't that correct? Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
John, actually the word inertia suggests a dull mind to me, one under the influence of tamas guna. Whereas the phrase noisy mind suggests one having more of a rajasic tendency. I think conditioning could give rise to either situation and that situation could be ever changing depending on one's prakriti or inherent nature, which I bet can be seen in the jyotish chart. My guess is that those with kapha constitution would be relatively stable if a bit leaning in the dull direction. Pitta people would tend to rajasic minds. I think restful alertness is a great solution, infinite dynamism balanced by infinite silence. Maharishi explained that between these two arises infinite wakefulness. From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: John, actually the word inertia suggests a dull mind to me, one under the influence of tamas guna. Whereas the phrase noisy mind suggests one having more of a rajasic tendency. I think conditioning could give rise to either situation and that situation could be ever changing depending on one's prakriti or inherent nature, which I bet can be seen in the jyotish chart. My guess is that those with kapha constitution would be relatively stable if a bit leaning in the dull direction. Pitta people would tend to rajasic minds. I think restful alertness is a great solution, infinite dynamism balanced by infinite silence. Maharishi explained that between these two arises infinite wakefulness. Does it make you feel somehow better or safer or more cocooned in some way to speak about the characteristics of the world in this way? Do you ever just look at yourself in more concrete and fundamental/down-to-Earth ways, Share? When you write like this it is like you are using this buffer zone of jargon to say something that could be viewed so much more direct, simpler, truer. Can you remove this 'insulation' you have come to adopt in the way you speak and just say it like it is? The overlay of this ayurvedic and jyotish gobbledygook speak just seems to hide what is really (or could be) really going on. Or maybe what you say is all deep truth and my Saturn nodes coupled with Venus' tamasic shoelaces have tangled in the web of Rahu. From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion  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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Rory! Yay! Has the anticipation of Totally Unlimited Posting (TUP) lured you back to the Funny Farm Lounge? To stay? Actually I think you left before I joined but we've been on a couple of other forums at the same time. Hey, I bet you got seniority here. Hmmm... Anyway, I love what you say below, it resonates, especially that bit about paradoxes and self contradicting. Maybe Brahman is a Gemini (-: From: RoryGoff roryg...@hotmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 9:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Oh fer cryin' out loud... there's gotta be some Lama or Rinpoche out there who can set you straight on the One True Path of Sequentially Unfolding Awakening. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Hi, Share! Thanks for your welcome! Yes, I left here before you joined, and now after quite a long hiatus I am inspired to post again after hearing from Alex that freedom is returning -- albeit provisionally -- to FFL. Even so, I don't have much seniority here, compared to a lot of the real old-timers. I started posting here sometime around 2004, and in many respects it was FFL -- and the great people I met here -- which drew me physically back to Fairfield in 2005 to meet them in person and, it turns out, to stay, more or less permanently. Sure, Brahman must be a Gemini, and everything else, too! On the other hand... :-) *L*L*L* R. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Rory! Yay! Has the anticipation of Totally Unlimited Posting (TUP) lured you back to the Funny Farm Lounge? To stay? Actually I think you left before I joined but we've been on a couple of other forums at the same time. Hey, I bet you got seniority here. Hmmm... Anyway, I love what you say below, it resonates, especially that bit about paradoxes and self contradicting. Maybe Brahman is a Gemini (-: From: RoryGoff rorygoff@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 9:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion  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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
HA! Doubtless it is just so, Alex! Papadum always yells at me, What timeless? If it is not being in time, it is being very very late! You are always just now making up these silly excuses for not coming to see me in my cave every day and paying your dues! And when I tell him, there is no room for you and me in your cave, and there are no dues and donuts! He just yells at me and calls me a silly neo-advaitin. But tricks are for kids, right? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: Oh fer cryin' out loud... there's gotta be some Lama or Rinpoche out there who can set you straight on the One True Path of Sequentially Unfolding Awakening. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
It seems like all that stuff goes away, simply because we spiral upward to a point of functioning, of refinement, of mental rest, where it all becomes more trouble than it is worth. Not to say that at any time we want to, we can recapture any of those states, and live them almost fully - I say almost, because the play is now seen clearly, and even deeply asleep, we are Awake. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Ha! Yes, Jim, more trouble than it is worth, exactly. Unless someone stimulates something in Us, anyhow. As to being Awake, yes, well, it seems some of Us say we are, and some of Us say we aren't, or even that we don't exist, at least through those particular bodies of Us. All true enough, I suppose, to play whatever games we want to play, through whatever bodies we wish to play them! Ha! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: It seems like all that stuff goes away, simply because we spiral upward to a point of functioning, of refinement, of mental rest, where it all becomes more trouble than it is worth. Not to say that at any time we want to, we can recapture any of those states, and live them almost fully - I say almost, because the play is now seen clearly, and even deeply asleep, we are Awake. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-) Thanks! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-) Thanks! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Ha! Paternal sweetness on a schtick! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-) Thanks! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
LOL! and a wavicle tip of the hat particle, to you, sir! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: Ha! Paternal sweetness on a schtick! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-) Thanks! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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? Not just this, but that
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Well said. And illustrated. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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? Not just this, but that
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Great illustration and contrast of meaning. A picture is worth a thousand words, as someone said before. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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? Not just this, but that
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: John, actually the word inertia suggests a dull mind to me, one under the influence of tamas guna. Whereas the phrase noisy mind suggests one having more of a rajasic tendency. I think conditioning could give rise to either situation and that situation could be ever changing depending on one's prakriti or inherent nature, which I bet can be seen in the jyotish chart. My guess is that those with kapha constitution would be relatively stable if a bit leaning in the dull direction. Pitta people would tend to rajasic minds. I think restful alertness is a great solution, infinite dynamism balanced by infinite silence. Maharishi explained that between these two arises infinite wakefulness. Share, Your points are excellent. I'm also thinking of inertia as prakriti or attachment to all of the doshas in the human physiology. But I was watching this discussion of imminent scientists relating to the universe as a hologram. This may be the ultimate inertia for everything in the universe. You may find this enjoyable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsbZT9bJ1s4 From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion  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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Thank you, John, I'm gonna watch it after I send this. Meanwhile this is for you: John Searle on consciousness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqDgt12m26c From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: John, actually the word inertia suggests a dull mind to me, one under the influence of tamas guna. Whereas the phrase noisy mind suggests one having more of a rajasic tendency. I think conditioning could give rise to either situation and that situation could be ever changing depending on one's prakriti or inherent nature, which I bet can be seen in the jyotish chart. My guess is that those with kapha constitution would be relatively stable if a bit leaning in the dull direction. Pitta people would tend to rajasic minds. I think restful alertness is a great solution, infinite dynamism balanced by infinite silence. Maharishi explained that between these two arises infinite wakefulness. Share, Your points are excellent. I'm also thinking of inertia as prakriti or attachment to all of the doshas in the human physiology. But I was watching this discussion of imminent scientists relating to the universe as a hologram. This may be the ultimate inertia for everything in the universe. You may find this enjoyable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsbZT9bJ1s4 From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion  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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 While true on one level, this is a declaration made on the basis of a value judgment. An assumption that Frawley not only makes but fails to challenge is thought is NOT 'true consciousness.' Step back from that assumption, and deal with the possibility that thought is NOT the antithesis of 'true consciousness,' but merely another aspect of it, and it's a whole other story. Can you deal with that, John? Can you honestly state that your moments of no-thought in transcendence have NO higher or better significance than your moments of thought? If you cannot, then your life is ruled by dogma. The wish to believe, not the will to find out. Just sayin'...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Yeah, that was poorly described. What I mean is that hopefully the momentary realization, etc. will allow him over time to recognize the Divine utility of thought, however he gets there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Dr. D, You appear to be saying that the technology of communication is a necessity to have a true culture. Is that correct? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
Wow - I never actually considered that, but it is a cool thing to think about. I meant that it is through thought, and thinking, that the ability to communicate becomes possible, through the development and refinement of communications technology. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Dr. D, You appear to be saying that the technology of communication is a necessity to have a true culture. Is that correct? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 While true on one level, this is a declaration made on the basis of a value judgment. An assumption that Frawley not only makes but fails to challenge is thought is NOT 'true consciousness.' Step back from that assumption, and deal with the possibility that thought is NOT the antithesis of 'true consciousness,' but merely another aspect of it, and it's a whole other story. Can you deal with that, John? Can you honestly state that your moments of no-thought in transcendence have NO higher or better significance than your moments of thought? If you cannot, then your life is ruled by dogma. The wish to believe, not the will to find out. Just sayin'... Barry, It appears to me that one has to define what is true consciousness. After it's defined, then it would not seem reasonable to say both true and not true consciousness are true at the same time. Isn't that correct?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Wow - I never actually considered that, but it is a cool thing to think about. I meant that it is through thought, and thinking, that the ability to communicate becomes possible, through the development and refinement of communications technology. Dr. D, Granted, what you say is true. But the development and refinement of communications technology does not necessarily lead to an unconditioned mind or thought. It can only contribute to the inertia of our conditioning. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Dr. D, You appear to be saying that the technology of communication is a necessity to have a true culture. Is that correct? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Wow - I never actually considered that, but it is a cool thing to think about. I meant that it is through thought, and thinking, that the ability to communicate becomes possible, through the development and refinement of communications technology. Dr. D, Granted, what you say is true. But the development and refinement of communications technology does not necessarily lead to an unconditioned mind or thought. It can only contribute to the inertia of our conditioning. Yes, hence the instigation of the 50-post limit on FFL. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Dr. D, You appear to be saying that the technology of communication is a necessity to have a true culture. Is that correct? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Wow - I never actually considered that, but it is a cool thing to think about. I meant that it is through thought, and thinking, that the ability to communicate becomes possible, through the development and refinement of communications technology. Dr. D, Granted, what you say is true. But the development and refinement of communications technology does not necessarily lead to an unconditioned mind or thought. It can only contribute to the inertia of our conditioning. Yes, hence the instigation of the 50-post limit on FFL. -Buck There you go, Buck. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Dr. D, You appear to be saying that the technology of communication is a necessity to have a true culture. Is that correct? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
The CC experience would include thoughts and silence together. Thoughts with a contrasting silence. Witnessing the thinking process. The witness is the silence (Self). From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 2:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion 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 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, 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 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, 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 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
John, a friend sent me this info on the new prince's chart. Thought you might enjoy. http://www.jyotishstar.com/hrh-prince-george-august-2013.html From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 While true on one level, this is a declaration made on the basis of a value judgment. An assumption that Frawley not only makes but fails to challenge is thought is NOT 'true consciousness.' Step back from that assumption, and deal with the possibility that thought is NOT the antithesis of 'true consciousness,' but merely another aspect of it, and it's a whole other story. Can you deal with that, John? Can you honestly state that your moments of no-thought in transcendence have NO higher or better significance than your moments of thought? If you cannot, then your life is ruled by dogma. The wish to believe, not the will to find out. Just sayin'... Barry, It appears to me that one has to define what is true consciousness. After it's defined, then it would not seem reasonable to say both true and not true consciousness are true at the same time. Isn't that correct?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
