Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[Share Long]

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 
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  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 
> 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"  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@  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"  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

[Share Long]

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 
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  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 
> 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"  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@  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"  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

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  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 
> 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"  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@  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"  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

[John]

Great illustration and contrast of meaning.  A picture is worth a thousand 
words, as someone said before.

--- 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

[turquoiseb]

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

[PaliGap]

--- 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

[doctordumbass]

LOL! and a wavicle tip of the hat particle, to you, sir!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff"  wrote:
>
> 
> Ha! Paternal sweetness on a schtick! 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  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"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-)
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > *L*L*L*
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome!
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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@  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  
> > > > > > > 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"  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"  
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[RoryGoff]

Ha! Paternal sweetness on a schtick! 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  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"  wrote:
> >
> > Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-)
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > *L*L*L*
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome!
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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@  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  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"  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"  
> > > > > > > > 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 "att

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[doctordumbass]

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"  wrote:
>
> Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> *L*L*L*
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome!
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-)
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  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"  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"  
> > > > > > > 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@ 
> > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > David needs to speak for himsel

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[RoryGoff]

Ha! Now I am really confused! Wouldn't a point be a particle? :-)

Thanks!

*L*L*L*

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome!
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-)
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  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"  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"  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@  
> > > > > > > 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 jus

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[RoryGoff]

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@...  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"  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"  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"  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"  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@  
> > > > > 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 tho

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[doctordumbass]

EXACTLY My Point!! :-) Welcome!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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@  wrote:
> >
> > Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  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"  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"  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@  
> > > > > > 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 
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[doctordumbass]

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"  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"  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"  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"  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@  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"  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."
> > > > > > 
> > > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[RoryGoff]

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@...  wrote:
>
> Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  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"  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"  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@  
> > > > > 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"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Thought, if we learn to observe it, is a reaction-mechanism 
> > > > > > > devoid of true consciousness.  It is the inertia of our 
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[doctordumbass]

Dude! WTF?! Glad to see you back, you particle, you!!! :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  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"  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"  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@  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"  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

[RoryGoff]

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"  
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"  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"  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"  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"  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@  
> > > > > 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,

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[RoryGoff]

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  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 
> 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"  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"  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"  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 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[Alex Stanley]

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"  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"  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"  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"  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@  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"  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

[Share Long]

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 
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"  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"  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"  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@  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"  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

[RoryGoff]

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"  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"  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"  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@  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"  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

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  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 
> 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"  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@  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"  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

[Share Long]

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 
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"  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@  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"  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

[John]

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  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 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:26 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  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

[sparaig]

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"  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"  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@  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"  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

[Share Long]

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 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:26 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  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?


   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion

[Mike Dixon]

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 
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"  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@  
> 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"  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

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  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"  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@  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"  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

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  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"  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@  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"  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

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  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"  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@  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"  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

[John]

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"  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@  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"  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

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  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

[doctordumbass]

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"  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@  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"  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

[John]

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@...  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"  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

[doctordumbass]

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"  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@  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"  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

[sparaig]

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@...  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"  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

[doctordumbass]

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"  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

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  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'...