--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems to me that the states of mind people refer to as states of > "enlightenment" are shifts of awareness that are more fundamental than > a compulsion to return to a favorite emotion (outrage for example). *lol* Yes, I wouldn't equate enlightenment with a compulsion to return to a favorite emotion (or the opposite, either), but then again, I don't particularly see Judy that way. I *do* see her intellect as generally crystal-clear, and that she won't tolerate "fuzzy" thinking. I think some of what you're seeing as outrage may be her belief that you must be "choosing" to think fuzzily, i.e. to consciously lie, when IMO you almost certainly aren't. I know I wasn't consciously "choosing to lie" when I would make anti-MMY or anti-TMO statements; I was just wounded, angry and resentful and I tended to make baseless and illogical generalizations when coming from that space. (Perhaps it's that sacred DNA in the base of my spine; I'm predominantly Irish.) God knows, my mind has *never* been well trained in logic, so you can imagine the shambles I was (unconsciously) in when coming from a victimized space! And now, the joke is, I can do nothing *but* lie! (Not true.) Whenever I make a statement, the opposite instantly surfaces to be appreciated as well (Not true.) :-) > I'm quite sure I'm in over my head in a discussion of your state of > awareness, *I* am in over my head in a discussion of my state of awareness...:-) Let's just say I place no ultimate importance on the state my awareness happens to be in right now, as it's just another state. Dang! Even That's a lie. It's the ONLY state. Liar! Liar! It's BEAUTIFULLY ordinary. Nope. My pants are on fire! (Who was it who said Brahman was slippery? Oh yeah, me. And MMY. He also said *why* it was slippery: That the intellect, Buddhi, becomes so clear as to be virtually non-existent, revealing the substratum of the Atman, the Self, everywhere. And the Self is utterly indescribable, containing and transcending all opposites. That is pretty good, for a lie! :-) ) I *do* currently like to place a lot of attention on the particles in my Being, as they love the lovin' and it gets the juices flowing to turn this burg into a hopping, popping, psychedelic paradise. Love is the ultimate particle accelerator, baby! HOOah! :-) >but isn't your experience a shift concerning your > relationship of your identity (Self) with your thoughts and feelings? I don't know. I could say Yes, but I could just as truthfully say No. All of the above, none of the above. I can't be pinned down, even by saying I can't. Because I can! Not! Can! Not! :-) > This should give you more choices concerning where you put your > attention within your thoughts and feelings options, right? I don't know. (Do so! Do not!) Should it? (Shouldn't it?) Was that what they promised? Maybe I should ask for my money back? My selves are too virtual to be described, I think. Or don't think. :-) >Although > you may not be choosing the state itself and its perspective, it seems > to me that it is different from a person feeling compelled to think a > certain thought or harbor a specific feeling. The lack of choice may > be the same, but the outcome is almost the exact opposite. So oppositely opposite as to be the same, maybe. I only know that I am in no condition to ascribe to another what is not in myself, as I am only seeing those values in those particles by virtue of the essences in my own Being -- which is why I may be entirely wrong on my appraisal of Barry and Steve; I am only operating from and creating on the resonance(s) of memory. In fact in one sense I am absolutely wrong, for I *know* that ultimately there is only the radiantly Indescribable Self singing in each particle of each of Us. >I think > Turq's speculation of a lack of self-reflective ability may be on the > mark. *lol* Then I would say, enjoy that reality between you! It's not predominant among my realities or perceptions, but so what? I just thought I'd give a minority opinion. To me she is a Dharmapala, but I wouldn't want to be taken for Gospel. (I don't take *Gospel* for Gospel, if it comes to that. :-) ) > I appreciate that you are open to discussing your subjective > experiences. Although I might use different language to describe my > own internal experience, the subject fascinates me whatever the > language used. And I appreciate and respect *your* openness, Curtis! It's been a real pleasure getting to know you here. Thank you. :-) *L*L*L*
