--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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
Yup. But at the same time, it's not the kinda conversation you necessarily want to add your name to in the list of credits. :-) ------------------------ 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/
