--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > "It's all fun and games until someone loses an I!" FFL Motto!!
That was excellent Jim. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > As I read in an adjacent post, there tends to be a (what I term) neo-non > > > dual, neo-spiritualism that is a dismissiveness of seeing( and doing) > > > things that that ought to be done, could be done, inviting opportunities > > > to enable or support some macro expansion of happiness, understanding, > > > love, appreciation, environmental balance, nutritional betterment, or > > > educational achievement. These are viewed, it appears as being spiritual > > > thorns, being "highly bothered" with what is > > which is perfect, so if you are bothered with what is perfect one is a > > spiritual misfit and slacker. I don't relate. > > > > RG: Hey, TB; good to hear from you as always. Yes, I guess I missed the > > adjacent post you read, but I have noticed in general that a dualistic > > intellect -- well, there's a redundancy for you, but I mean an intellect > > which has not become fully transparent to and surrendered into Us, or an > > intellect as discriminator into which we have quasi-permanently subjected > > ourself and lost ourself (i.e., the "whore" of which Ravi speaks so > > beautifully), and with which we fully identify as an I-point or as an > > essentially separate witness, a creature who is entirely subject to > > hierarchy, comparison of self-vs.-other(s), states of consciousness, and > > spacetime -- again, a dualistic intellect will interpret "everything is > > perfect" as advocating a static perfection, whereas the perfection of what > > IS certainly includes one's desires, as they also ARE. > > > > As Judy has mentioned here in the past, when someone asked MMY (I > > paraphrase), "If everything is perfect, why are we working so hard to > > change it," he is said to have replied, "That too is perfect." > > > > MMY was the first to show me that desires were good, and for that I will > > probably be grateful to him always. I had to re-discover their divinity for > > myself as the crystalline perfection of what IS re-awoke to itself and > > noticed that it contained need-points as collapsed singularities of the > > Whole (which actually created the crystalline lattice amongst themselves) > > ... > > > > <snip> > > > > > TB: Perhaps as "less is outside of me" blossoming to "nothing is outside > > > of me" there is less distinction of outer and inner riches and micro vs > > > macro initiatives. > > > > RG: Definitely no real distinction between inner and outer or micro and > > macro here, as everything we perceive or know is all quite self-evidently > > constructed of our awareness or being, but a very distinct hierarchy of > > need nonetheless; the body has its own wisdom in presenting our needs to us > > in their perfect order, and we always pay attention to the "loudest" first; > > time sorts itself out perfectly that way :-) > > > > TB: It's all satisfying. It's all motivating. It's all compelling. It's > > all good. It's all intriguing. It's all fun. > > > > RG: Satisfying, motivating, compelling, good and intriguing, yes! And yes, > > fun, except when it isn't! Ha. That is, yes, of course, it is all a play of > > love, light, and laughter, or cardinal-fixed-mutable, or mass-light-energy, > > but we still fool ourselves constantly, as we continually encounter > > "not-self" and assimilate it into "self". We are constantly bringing our > > particles, our children, to Us through their various states of > > consciousness, and we begin each dance by identifying with them, in > > ignorance together with them. "No one shall see the face of God and live," > > and so some fear us and strive to avoid the void and maintain a separate > > existence in addiction and distraction, thinking "It's all fun and games > > until someone loses an I!" And that's perfectly OK too. > > > > As we re-immerse ourselves into ignorance through a need-point and then > > re-member Us again and again, it IS generally fun, but occasionally not so > > much, when we encounter a piece a little too big to swallow without some > > diligent chewing :-) > > >
