From: whatever@twixtntween.com   
      
   On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:18:43 -0700, Crowfoot    
   wrote:   
      
   >In article <5b40r29eg60jg9786813n3sstrps2t17l5@4ax.com>,   
   > Jyeshta  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:21:52 -0700, Crowfoot    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >Now yer talking; but I think how it works is that you   
   >> >> >have to come to *accept and embrace* the wretched   
   >> >> >place, horrors and all, before you are qualified to *leave   
   >> >> >it behind forever*.   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >Sounds just like life, doesn't it?   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Well, in earth life, you don't have to accept and embrace the world,   
   >> >> do you?  I mean, in any hypothetical particular incarnation.   
   >> >   
   >> >No, and most of us don't; but I believe that your last life on   
   >> >this planet and in physical form is the one in which you do in   
   >> >fact come to the place at which you accept and embrace the   
   >> >whole shebang, horrors and all.  Maybe acceptance means no   
   >> >longer being *engaged* with it, so that there's nothing to draw   
   >> >you back here: been here, done it, given it all a hug and a tear,   
   >> >and moved on out, says the T shirt.   
   >>   
   >> In that case, I feel that I have reached the acceptance stage.   
   >   
   >If you have, I am envious!  I get way too angry about stuff to   
   >imagine myself in that longed-for place.   
   >   
   >> I am not at all engaged with earthly life.   
   >   
   >Hmm.  Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "engaged" that   
   >way.  I think acceptance of the kind I'm talking about means   
   >engagement *without* judgmentalism; you just take it as it   
   >comes and deal with it, you don't step back and *avoid* it to   
   >avoid engagement (I'm not saying that's what you're talking   
   >about re yourself, only that I'm concerned with a word that I   
   >think I've used in a misleading way).  You step forward and   
   >take it all in, because it's your last time, you're about to leave   
   >it all behind -- so it's all precious if only in its sheer physicality.   
   >I have a couple of friends who use spirituality to detach   
   >themselves from engagement, which isn't what I'm trying to   
   >get at: maybe because the first "religious" reading I did as an   
   >adult that really caught me up was about Zen Buddhism, and   
   >I think I've kept that idea of detachment + vivid presence   
   >and habitation of the "now" as the ultimate goal in the physical   
   >world.  At that point, you're free to go (or stay) as you choose,   
   >and most go.   
   >   
   >>  I think I took acceptance to   
   >> mean being all right with all the horrors - but actually it is. I   
   >> guess.  I think you do have to feel only compassion for the murderers,   
   >> etc.  Anger and outrage and suchlike mean one's still engaged with the   
   >> world, in which case I am.  And maybe even compassion is unnecessary.   
   >> I don't know.   
   >   
   >Yeah, see above -- it seems to be a sort of intense suspension   
   >between deep involvement and the detachment of perspective,   
   >and I think that everyone who's been around a few (hundred!)   
   >times has had glimpses, moments of it, and so has an inkling of   
   >what it is when you do in fact get there.   
   >   
   >> >And because we are old, old comrades-in-arms and in everything   
   >> >else with them, we say yes, and then we go around connecting   
   >> >up with other friends for stuff we want to get done ourselves, and   
   >> >meantime we realize that we can't *remember* what fresh-   
   >> >squeezed orange juice or fine Belgian chocolate or smoked bacon   
   >> >actually *tastes* like, only that it was unbearably wonderful, and   
   >> >so was running in a strong, healthy body (and all that other stuff   
   >> >we do in those bodies), and next thing you know, we're ready to   
   >> >jump back in.   
   >>   
   >> Yes, I pretty much agree with all that, in theory.  I really don't   
   >> know what I believe, except that, due to certain experiences I've had,   
   >> I believe the soul survives physical death.   
   >   
   >Do you feel you can elaborate on that a little?  I don't   
   >want to pry, I'm just curious.   
      
   I'm sorry I haven't replied to you sooner.  It was simply that your   
   tone was that of teacher to pupil, and it annoyed me.  This is the   
   first time that I have looked at your reply.   
      
   I've had experiences of contact with loved ones after they have passed   
   away.  At least three of them with my best friend who passed in '91 -   
   but they stopped around two or three years after his passing.  I   
   suppose he became busy with new things he was doing in his spirit life   
   and became detached from the physical world and his loved ones here.   
      
   I had two contact experiences from my father after he passed in '94.   
   The second one of those occurred on the anniversary of his passing.   
      
   And I had one contact experience with the love of my life, my beloved   
   cat of twenty-one years, a few days after her passing.   
      
   I prefer not to be specific about the nature of these contact   
   experiences because they contain content that was shared privately   
   between me and each different loved one.   
      
   >> >You didn't think we did all this stuff *alone*, did you?  Every   
   >> >last one of us has old friends all over the world (and out of the   
   >> >world too, of course).   
   >>   
   >> No, I didn't think that at all.  I'm an astrologer.  I've been taught   
   >> we choose our own charts, pick our own parents, have hordes of soul   
   >> mates with whom we make deals and arrangements for each incarnation,   
   >   
   >Great, we're on the same page there.  I only raised the issue   
   >because in this culture we're so soundly indoctrinated with   
   >the idea of our essential solitude that a lot of people think it's   
   >true.   
   >   
   >>  I just don't know what I truly believe right now.   
   >   
   >Yeah; we all have our moments.  Sometimes all it takes is a   
   >glance at the morning paper . . .   
   >   
   >> >My info is that we all get back; we are what that consciousness is   
   >> >made up of, dispersed into the universe, and that consciousness   
   >> >is not whole again until every last scrap comes home, no matter   
   >> >how long it takes.  After all, we've got eternity; there is no meter   
   >> >running.   
   >>   
   >> Maybe there is (a meter running).   
   >   
   >Maybe there is!  But then -- who's driving the damn cab?    
      
   That is the question. :-)   
      
   >>  What is eternity, and how much of it is reliant on matter?   
   >> None of it?  In that case, it doesn't matter that the universe is   
   >> expanding and... what's supposed to happen?   
   >   
   >You've got me; but I incline toward the idea that everything is   
   >basically energy, and that "matter" is just more or less tightly   
   >clotted energy that's lumped together to slow it all down, introduce   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)