> > > On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:36 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > >> > This reminds me of what Rory said a few posts back about CC, GC and > > > > UC being transitory states. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > Yet this is just new age speculation.
Rory wrote: > > > > Au contraire, mon frere -- it is my direct experience :-) > > New wrote: > > Yet Jim in a post yesterday dismissed the analogy of acid induced > states of being as not valid because they were not permanent. I think that was me, actually. IME, "ignorance," "C.C.," "G.C.," "U.C." -- any "state of consciousness" is transitory, because it's claimed by a particle still believing itself to be "in" the Universe, subject to space and time and experience; only That which is the culmination of "U.C.," Brahman recognizing itSelf, is permanent, because it has always been here, just as it is, and the "I-particle" eventually gets tired of superimposing difference, distinction, intellect, upon That and surrenders into the utter perfection of what is, what has always been, what will always be. New: > Thats not a gotcha quote. But a continuing crack of wonderment at the > cosmic egg of your View. And while some may trot out the tired (IMO) > saw of "you just can't handle paradox" -- I remind you of my view that > mundane parodoxes are often not profound -- and are certainly not true > by the fact that they contradictory statements. Sometimes, most of > the time, contrdictory statements are just what they are. I must be missing something, New, because I don't even see a contradiction here, let alone a paradox! Could you elaborate? *L*L*L*
