--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > 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 :-)
Oh, yes! it must be enlightenment - I-I understand all [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-) Amazing ------------------------ 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/
