--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yet when Jim refuses to even *consider* examining > his enlightenment, even if it's just theoretical > and for fun, you defend him and claim that I'm > accusing him of something. Hmmmm. :-)
Why don't we just leave it at you have made up your mind about my state of consciousness, whatever your conclusion is? As I said before, my state of consciousness is not determined by what I think, rather it is based on what I am. If you have doubts about me being enlightened, why should I want to change your mind? I am comfortable with you having those doubts, if you are. This isn't a competition. It is a reality. Accept it, don't accept it. Whatever, but please quit trying to make that my problem-- I owe you nothing in that regard. > The Byron Katie fans here seem to be saying that > it's a good thing to utilize some of her techniques > to analyze their "stories" to see if they're true. > And yet there is one story of their own that is > somehow "exempt" from analysis. Hmmmm. > Unless you are willing to go through Byron Katie's inquiry yourself, there's not a lot more to say about this.:-)
