--- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Wow - I never actually considered that, but it is a cool thing to think 
> > about. I meant that it is through thought, and thinking, that the ability 
> > to communicate becomes possible, through the development and refinement of 
> > communications technology.
> 
> Dr. D,
> 
> Granted, what you say is true.  But the development and refinement of 
> communications technology does not necessarily lead to an unconditioned mind 
> or thought.  It can only contribute to the inertia of our conditioning.
>

Yes, hence the instigation of the 50-post limit on FFL.
-Buck
  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dr. D,
> > > 
> > > You appear to be saying that the technology of communication is a 
> > > necessity to have a true culture.  Is that correct?
> > > 
> > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David needs to speak for himself. There is not necessarily a "we", in 
> > > > his comment.
> > > > 
> > > > Thought is the *only* reason Mr. Frawley, and you, John, are able to 
> > > > share this piece of spinach with us. The engineers that developed this 
> > > > technology of communication, needed to think deeply, and continuously, 
> > > > to put this together. 
> > > > 
> > > > If I may hazard a guess, David F. has just discovered that 90% of his 
> > > > thoughts are useless energy and momentum, spent maintaining a story. It 
> > > > is a common, though by no means, universal malady. 
> > > > 
> > > > Once he sees this, perhaps Dave can put his mind into silence, and 
> > > > simply recognize the Divine utility of thought - the other 10%. In the 
> > > > meantime, his projecting isn't helping.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Thought, if we learn to observe it, is a reaction-mechanism devoid 
> > > > > of true consciousness.  It is the inertia of our conditioning that we 
> > > > > fail to truly question."
> > > > > 
> > > > > David Frawley
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to