--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy responds: > > > > The bottom line being that there is nothing that > > can be said about Brahman, positive or negative, > > of which the opposite is not also the case, > > because Brahman is One without a second. > > > > "All possibilities" is one way of putting it, but > > it doesn't quite convey how radical the Advaita > > paradox is. > > > > Tom T writes: > > No matter how radical that all sounds it is possible to be able to > > hold all that in the awake mind. > > Then it must be possible to be able to > hold all that in the unawake mind too. All Possibilities.
Right; no real difference between ignorance and enlightenment, or between being "asleep" and being "awake" -- though oddly enough, as we have seen, only the experientially "awake" appear generally able to appreciate this to any visceral extent, while the self- diagnosed "unawake" or "not yet awake" often would appear rather strenuously engaged in denying their (seemingly) self- evident "awake" presence in favor of some not-present (not-here-now) idealized criteria. This self-denial would thus appear always to be itself a self- referent mistake of the intellect: attributing some imaginary (not- here-now) properties (or "shoulds") to what is without properties, or only truly simply and nakedly what is in this moment, here-now, and then bewailing the absence of these same imaginary properties (or the presence of other less-desired imaginary properties) here- now, and thus invoking an overlay of space-time-desire etc. And yet somehow the intellect is eventually able to see through this same not-here-now overlay and abandon it into what always is, has always been, and always will be, the (non)radiant emptifulness of (not)self itself... How can that which is and has always been and will always be self- sufficient, self-evident and self-effulgent, ever hide itself from itself? My guess is that we get attached to those very descriptors (or ones like them) as "ideas" or "ideals" and use them to *obscure* the reality they are intended to *describe* (which can of course appear quite horrible, gnarly, and so on as well as stunningly beautiful, etc.), and so the projection is underway, and don't we all love a good movie! Odd indeed, but as you say, All Possibilities...! :-) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
