--- 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?
