--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ 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 underliningfor 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 > > > 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. > > > > Maybe transparent to you Ann (and now to Judy who's chimed in with her > support) but that's just the way you roll or whatever you seem to be > looking for. Whatever is *transparent* to you, what the hell difference > does it make? It seems that a few of you are making a concerted effort > to beat on those with differing viewpoints until they just give up and > no longer post here or at least post less frequently. Is that what > you're trying to do Ann? > > > > Anyway, what you write above *seems* transparent to me but, then > again, maybe that's just the way I roll. Or maybe what you write touches > my heart, but not in a good way, and forces me to respond. BTW, love the > boldface on your entire response...almost as good as underline. > Here Sweetie, just in case you like this better. If you hadn't noticed, > yesterday the formatting of the posts here was wonkified so people were > using all sorts of ways to identify who wrote what in each post. What, > do you think I was using bold to emphasize how important what I say is, > you twit?
Oh yes, that's what I thought Ann. As in following Share's lead of underlining for emphasis, I thought you were trying to one-up her by using all boldface. Very transparent indeed. > Funny how you indulge your negative reactions so well. When nature calls, you know. That's the power of your posts. Just a > little touch of anger in your heart and you're off to the races. Now, my > question to you: do you like the bold pink or bold black without the > italics better? > > Answered that in an earlier post.
