> > > > Tom T writes: > > > > No matter how radical that all sounds it is possible to be able to hold all that in the awake mind. > akasha_108 wrote: > > > Then it must be possible to be able to > > > hold all that in the unawake mind too. All Possibilities.
Rory wrote: > > Right; no real difference between ignorance and enlightenment, or > > between being "asleep" and being "awake" <snip> Akasha108 wrote: > then why bring it up? You tell me; you're the one who brought it up; I was just agreeing with you :-) Rory wrote: > -- though oddly enough, as > > we have seen, Akasha108 wrote: > We have seen? > I missed that paper, in what journal was that study published? Rory: The Journal of Irreproducible Results, vol. 1008, no. 108 IIRC. No, seriously -- we have seen here on FFL, the only journal really worth reading at this moment IMNSHO :-) Rory wrote: > > only the experientially "awake" appear generally able > > to appreciate this to any visceral extent, Akasha108 wrote: > How many times do I have to tell you??!! Its an Understanding, not an > Experience!! :) Rory writes: *lol* Yes; visceral appreciation is part of the full-bodied flavor of Understanding; it is not "an" experience, something enshrined in space and time as a memory or a desire, but we might certainly say that Understanding includes Experience, the two married together as ever-present "apperception" a la Jean Kline :-) Rory: > > while the self- > > diagnosed "unawake" or "not yet awake" often would appear Akasha108: > appear to whom? Rory: Yes, appear to whom? Who is (t)here? Who is questioning, and who is answering? Who is writing, and who is reading? How many of Us are there, anyhow? > > rather > > strenuously engaged in denying their (seemingly) self- > > evident Akasha: > straining is a bummer Rory: leads (or can lead) to hemorrhoids, I am told > > "awake" presence in favor of some not-present (not-here-now) > > idealized criteria. Akasha: > Or maybe lots of other alternatives. (Tom doesn't like your black and > white views, it appears.) No, Tom generally likes mine, because we speak the truth; we just don't like anyone else's, because if they pretend they are someone else, they are lying :-) > > This self-denial would thus appear Akasha: > appear to whom? Rory: You tell me, Mr. A; appear to whom? Akasha: > appearance as in apparition? Rory: appear as in appear? :-) > > always to be itself a self- > > referent mistake of the intellect: > Akasha: > God made faulty machinery? Has he issued a recall? Rory: *lol* Who says it was faulty? And who is he? > >attributing some imaginary (not- > > here-now) properties Akasha: > What else is here other than the here and now? Are you imagining > things again? :) Rory: Yes! :-) :-) > > (or "shoulds") Akasha: > and who is your imaginary attributor? Rory: Yes, Who? It would appear there is only one of us :-) > > to what is without properties Akasha: > guess they won't hurt when the real estate / properties bubble burts Rory: There you go with those hemorrhoids again :-) > > or only truly simply and nakedly what is in this moment, here- now, Akasha: > what else is there? Only one drawn to or absorbed to the other will be > aware of it. Rory: What other? You are confusing me :-) > > 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. Akasha: > Again, only one who imagines such can be aware of such, absorbed into > such. Rory: Yes, of course. Only one. > > And yet somehow the intellect is eventually able to see through this > > same not-here-now overlay and abandon it Akasha: > > I thought the intellect was broken. Did it get fixed? Rory: Who said it was broken? Presumably that's the same one who who could conceive of its being fixed...? :-) > > into what always is, has > > always been, and always will be, the (non)radiant emptifulness of > > (not)self itself... Akasha: > Ah, you took that Simuladvaita class. Was it good? Rory: It takes one to know one; you tell me; is it good? :-) > > 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? Akasha: > > I don't know. The question never arises where duality is absent. Rory: Never? But what about All Possibilities? That was our whole point, wasn't it? :-) Akasha: But, > have patience, in time such duality disolves and such silly thoughts > cease to arise. Rory: Are we sure? How do we know this is true if we are not experiencing it in this moment? > > My guess is that we get attached to those very descriptors (or ones > > like them) as "ideas" or "ideals" Akasha: > > What do you mean we, kimosabe? Rory: There is only "we," tonto :-) > > and use them to *obscure* the > > reality Akasha: > Like etching glass? Etched glass can be gorgeous, no? Rory: Surely. > > they are intended to *describe* Akasha: > > Excuse my saying, but you seem obsessed with describing. Rory: *lol* You are excused :-) > >(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! Akasha: > I rather look directly into the projector from 3 " away. Rory: That explains a lot :-) > > Odd indeed, but as you say, All Possibilities...! :-) Akasha: > Yes, all posibilities. So "All", that some may not fit into your > frameworks, which by definition, are limited. Rory: Of course. As I said, I was just agreeing with you :-) ------------------------ 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/
