--- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is different from Bernadette's experience is
the strong sence of
I present. An I not as an image of oneself,
rather an organizing
I that observes and works with many kinds of
energies.
It could actually be helpful to hear how people
--- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter seems to be talking about something else. He
has explained
waking state and enlightenment to be two different
things I have
earlier asked him how he on daily basis manages to
alternate between
waking state and enlightenment? But I have
Anon, you're hired as my official spokesperson! ;-)
--- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
see comments below.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli
Mattsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
meli
--- off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You also become
insulting in your responses to me. As soon as
this
happens I stop
Soounds great. I suspect I'll be dead from a heart
attack or in a
looney bin from the rollercoaster ride before that
happens to me.
Never was good at rollercoasters.
OffWorld
Ironically enough, I did end up in a loony
bin from the roller coaster ride (thanks mom).
No
--- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what kind of a reality a person has, who
claims to have no
I. In that case posts would just appear from
nowhere to FFL. No
subject is writing them and no subject is aware of
this writing
process and no one is responsible of the
On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:42 AM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip If you see a flower, who is seeing the flower? That was basically my question. Your answer would probably be that in your case the Universal Self is seeing the
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli
Mattsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli
Mattsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My opinion: A concept that you cannot define
shouldn't be used at all
untill you can define it.
Of course, I agree. The problem comes in when the
concepts one is attempting to define entail
experiences outside of the waking state mind. If these
On Oct 31, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Peter wrote:MMY talks about pure consciousness as unbounded. For years my mind thought of unboundedness as spatially big. In enlightenment one would "fill the cosmos". It's natural to think this because in our waking state experience boundaries cut space up into
--- off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then it would appear that Ramana did not have the
full experience,
only a superficial one...
Yeah, Ramana Maharishi wasn't fully realized like us !
__
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it
11 matches
Mail list logo
