Rory wrote: > > 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.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or not. My only criterion, for instance, is not to > be overshadowed. Judy, if that is a criterion that is not evidently present here-now, then I would respectfully suggest it is idealized, conceptual, and *obscuring* the perfect grace of the simple reality which is your birthright from yourself to yourself in this moment. In other words, I can pretty much guarantee you that as long as you are looking to be not overshadowed, that desire *itself* is going to overshadow you. You are bigger than the goal you are imagining; you can't shoehorn yourself with integrity into something that small. You can't deny any of it; you contain *all of it* :-) > <snip> > > 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! Judy wrote: > Take a minute for a little thought experiment, Rory. > > Let's say we don't get attached. Let's say we've > never *been* attached. Let's say human beans have > always been realized. > > How far back would that apply, do you think, given > that human beans--Homo sapiens--didn't emerge full- > blown from the head of Zeus but evolved gradually > from earlier humanoid species? Such is not precisely my understanding or experience, so far as self- aware consciousness goes. That evidently exists a priori. Yes, we apparently incarnate or have incarnated earlier forms of primate (as well as countless other forms, of course), but as far as I can see, that self-realization or self-awareness has always been present, before dropping into those forms, while in those forms, and after leaving those forms. > And then I've got another question or two. As always, I am at your service, O She-who-is-wide-awake-even-in- sleep :-) ------------------------ 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/
