--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > <snip> > On a spiritual level, it is clearly attachment to > self. The self is what "casts a shadow." The light > is what *creates* the shadow, attempting to pass > through it as the selflessness that light knows it > really is, but finding "substance" -- samskaras, ego, > beliefs, attachments. All of these things cast a > shadow. And the self doesn't *LIKE* the shadow- > selves that light projects of them, so it reacts > with fear and anger and a compulsion to 1) demonize > the light, and 2) claim that "That shadow isn't me. > Only *I* -- the way *I* present myself -- am me."
Barry's caffeine must not have taken effect yet when he wrote this, because it's even more incoherent than usual. But note the unspoken (and highly questionable) assumption that others' purported perceptions of the "shadows" of people they don't like are unfailingly 100 percent accurate, such that if a person takes issue with those perceptions, it's not because they're inaccurate but because the person's own perceptions are different, and thereby, by definition, "wrong." > I'm less for the compulsive "spinning" > of one's shadow to pretend it isn't one's own. We're > all "light bulbs" on this forum, and we all cast our > own light. And we all cast our own shadows. If we're > wise, we *learn* from those shadows...we don't fear > them and curse the light that projected them. So considering how much time Barry spends cursing the lights that project his shadows, I guess he's not all that wise yet, hmmm? This is funny. From another Barrypost, addressing Raunchy: > As you do *every* time the name of Saint Hillary > comes up, you remind us of the pointlessness of > trying to discuss her rationally with you. You > are incapable of doing so. A prize to anyone who can come up with even a paragraph of "rational" discussion--with anyone-- of Hillary by Barry.
