--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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* :-)
Never mind. > > > <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 :-) Never mind. ------------------------ 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/
