> > Ron (previously previously):
> > How does Marsha's statement exclaim the non-self?
>
>
> [SA previously]
> I read it as "it's not as personal", thus,
> not-ego-self, in other words, non-self. Therefore,
> what Marsha asked was more of an innocent question
> than how people responded. They pinned Marsha's
> response on Marsha alone, but Marsha is trying to
> talk about something that is not just about Marsha
and
> how Marsha thinks, etc... If I'm off the mark
Marsha,
> then fill me in.
>
> Ron previously:
> o.k., interesting, hmmm, question: do situations
> and conditions exist
> separate from ones perception of them?
[SA currently]
Dialogue sorts this 'stuff' out Ron... but to
answer your question - what does this question have to
do with what I said? I said, "it's not about Marsha
alone" Sure it has something to do with Marsha.
Everything has to do with Marsha, but it's "not just
about Marsha". Ron your reading into this too much or
something. Overanalyizing or something. Maybe some
yin, as Marsha was trying to say, is what's needed if
so.
Ron:
It is my contention that You and Marsha are over analyzing.
[Ron]
> if it does then all we may know
> about them is through our own perception. Either
> way, does it not depend
> on how one views , well, just about anything?
[SA currently]
Well, if it does then your perception seems to
have been off the mark on what Marsha said. So you
have a female problem, not Marsha, for Marsha didn't
bring up a biological female problem, you did. So
how's that work?
Ron:
SA, are you following along? Read Marsha's first post then tell me how I
am
Starting this. I nowhere stated this I just question her statements.
> > Ron previously previously:
> > Is what true?
>
> [SA previously]
> The statement I made. I was respecting
> Marsha's integrity. The same as when I say ask a
chipmunk.
> I'm respecting their integrity. Who are we to speak
> for somebody else? I took what she said and then
> asked her if it was true as how I saw what she
> wrote.
>
> Ron:
> Yes, it is a noble action, but, do we really hear
> the chipmunk?
> Or do we hear the chipmunk through ourselves?
[SA currently]
Do we really hear the chipmunk? I'm not
over-analysizing this. When a chipmunk makes a sound,
then I hear this chipmunk sound.
Do we hear the chipmunk through ourselves? Sound
travels into the ear. I am a component of this
universe, which includes chipmunks, so chipmunks
travel through ourselves and I through a chipmunk.
This I is 'I don't know', its' not just this
biological skin for I eat food that grows on a tree
and sounds penatrate my very spirit making it what it
is.
Read Marsha's recent post. What's wrong with talking
about the feminine yin? Have you seen that little
on-going discussion with Sharath on the Lila/Lilith
thread?
Ron:
Yes I have and it is quite interesting, but this is not that thread.
I was simply questioning yours and Marsha's comments about gender
In Taoism and selflessness. I made statements about perception.
Please feel free to read my past posts
And quote anything I have said as evidence to the contrary.
Thanks SA,
Colder, sun setting
-Ron
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
