--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" > > <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" > > <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > > "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > > "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > > "sparaig" <sparaig@> > > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > Who's attachment was it then? > > > > Nobody's! > > I just opened this email so I'll jump in the > conversation here. I got so irritated at Sparaig for > his ridiculous post. I'm just tired of his > self-righteous, dogmatic posts. What the hell does > attachment or non-attachment have to do with anger? > Forget about me, but have you ever seen MMY get mad? I > have and so have others. He explodes in incredible > fury. Quite amazing. Don't think a realized person > can't get angry. Jesus, what a stupid concept to have.
I don't think it was your anger so much as the apparent egotism behind it that was so striking and that inspired the remark about "oozing attachment."
