--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > That's a good expalination of maya but it can only make sense at a > > point of recognition, before that a finite amount of stress that is > > released makes sense. But I don't think that's how it really is. > > > I agree -- there is not really "Being" and "stress," for how could > there be anything other than Being (or what IS)? There appears rather > to be only Being which recognizes itself as such and Being which fails > to recognize itself as such, by holding some preconceived idea(s) of > what Being must be, and must not be. But by definition, not-Being does > not exist :-)
Works for me ;-) 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/
