--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >  
> >  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >  In his Commentary on the Gita Maharishi explains, "With the
> >  constant practice of meditation, this infusion continues to
> >  grow and when it is full-grown cosmic consciousness will
> >  have been attained. Once this state is attained, to fall
> >  from it is impossible." pg 173
> > 
> >  from The  Science of Being and Art of Living, with my underlining
> >  for emphasis: When this self-consciousness is forever maintained, 
> >  even when the mind emerges from the Transcendent and engages in
> >  the field of activity, then self-consciousness attains the status
> >  of cosmic consciousness. Self-consciousness is then established 
> >  eternally in the nature of the mind.  pg 249
> > 
> > Ann wrote:
> >  Unless, of course, you make a conscious and concerted Herculean 
> >  effort, as Robin evidently did, to overthrow the overwhelming
> >  hold of enlightenment on yourself. It appears not everyone wants
> >  to stay under the influence or to be held so firmly by the force
> >  of this power over them. I daresay Robin would still be in UC
> >  unless he had taken the steps he did to counteract that state.
> >  You are implying, Share, that his UC was not real because he is
> >  no longer in that state of consciousness. You see, what you write 
> >  here is transparent.
> > 
> > Judy adds:
> > She fully intended it to be "transparent." (Don'cha love the
> > way she underlines "forever" and "eternally" just to make
> > sure we don't miss them?) At least Nabby had the guts and
> > integrity to put his point right out there.
> > 
> > Note that Maharishi writes, "TO FALL from [cosmic
> > consciousness] is impossible." "To fall" implies something
> > that happens against one's will, something one doesn't want
> > to happen. Robin *wanted* to get out of the state he was in
> > and, as Ann says, made "a conscious and concerted Herculean
> > effort" to do so--and *sustained* that effort for *25 years*,
> > a third of a lifetime.
> > 
> > That doesn't seem to be what Maharishi was saying is
> > impossible. (And even if he was, that doesn't mean he was
> > correct. He wasn't always right, as we all know.) It's
> > likely Maharishi never even conceived of someone going at
> > it as Robin did.
> > 
> > Wanting to go back to waking state *isn't in the books*, it
> > isn't something that is taught. It's assumed that the
> > enlightened state will always remain desirable once it has
> > been achieved. At least, I've never seen anything to the
> > contrary from a teacher of enlightenment; if anyone else has,
> > please set me straight.


Are you getting help for your inability to comprehend and/or
express a coherent thought, laughinggull?


> At least the above gave me a good laugh for the day and maybe
> even for the week. I have never seen anyone sink to this level
> in order defend their position. However, not quite as good as:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328550
> where you wrote to Share: "I stand by what I said. The negative
> intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used*
> his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to
> further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* 
> intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative 
> intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism,
> his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they
> could possibly be." 
> 
> OMG, look at the time. Gotta get to work. I wonder if too much 
> laughter is bad for someone? BTW Judy, do you prefer boldface
> or underline?


Reply via email to