--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > <snip> Hey, it's just the Paradox of Brahman. > > > > > > > > Not at all- its the failure of you and sparaig > > > > to just deal with Peter > > > > as Peter, and instead thinking that he should act > > > > differently than he is because he was talking about > > > > enlightened states earler. > > > > > > Every aspect of Peter's response oozed attachment. > > > > Attachment was oozing, but there was no Peter. > > > I don't get it- please explain. Thanks.
No "I" to take authorship of the response that Lawson says oozed attachment, just the three gunas interacting.
