--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > But Judy says she could not stomach having a simple lunch or beer > > with some on the list. Can't see any good or bliss. Still some steps > > to go, IMHO. > > Never claimed I didn't have steps to go, for > the record.
Agree. You have not. > But it isn't that I can't see any good or bliss. > It's that they're far outweighed by the negatives. Sorry if I over-generalized. I was making some broad brush observations. > FWIW, I think "What you put your attention on > grows" is being used here as a thought-stopper. Thats what i was exploring. From another angle, everything, even "negativity" can have bliss. Or good aspects. One step back, two forward and all. I was questioning the assumption that if one acknowledges anger or negativity, that this is a bad thing, And that good or bliss is not within that. More broadly, if Brahman has "negativity", and all negativiy is within Brahaman, what is the big deal with (some) focus on negativity? Further, I was arguing against the premise of some that you are generally negative or angry. Thus in the above contexts, "What you put your attention on grows" can be a bit shallow. And can be a thought-stopper. Or convo stopper. Though I do not think that is the intent of those suggesting it.
