Sigh.
It's going to be another one of those weeks, isn't it?
We were actually starting to have *fun* here on FFL
until the Bringdown Twins decided to lower things
to their level again.
Back in the trash bin with Flay-again. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh.
It's going to be another one of those weeks, isn't it?
We were actually starting to have *fun* here on FFL
until the Bringdown Twins decided to lower things
to their level again.
snip
I would never be so
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I would never be so silly as to believe that there
was such a thing as one truth, let alone try to
express it. I'll leave that to you...
snip
First, although [Bruce Cockburn] holds strong personal
beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
I would never be so silly as to believe that there
was such a thing as one truth, let alone try to
express it. I'll leave that to you...
So, the one truth for you, Barry, is that it's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willytex@ wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
I would never be so silly as to believe that there
was such a thing as one truth, let alone try to
express it. I'll
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh.
It's going to be another one of those weeks, isn't it?
We were actually starting to have *fun* here on FFL
until the Bringdown Twins decided to lower things
to their level again.
Poor Barry's ego. It
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willytex@ wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
I would never be so silly as to believe that there
was such a thing as one truth, let alone try to
express it. I'll
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willytex@ wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
I would never be so silly as to believe that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Ok, here is the point that's intrigued me. I fully
admit to having read very little Advaita, where these
ideas seem to be coming from. I walked away from TM
and having much of an interest in the Hindu-based
Judy,
We agree. I use sin merely as a poetic term for you're screwed, dude.
If the Absolute level is ignored, then one is, as if, committing
suicide -- Ramana has definitely used the word suicide for this
identification -- exclusively -- with amness/isness, since it kills
the Self by
A couple of comments below...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judy,
We agree. I use sin merely as a poetic term for you're screwed,
dude.
If the Absolute level is ignored, then one is, as if, committing
suicide -- Ramana has definitely used the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Edg,
Happy that you got off on my rap enough to write
all this, and happy that it made you happy to
write it. But you're still selling, and I'm not
a prospective buyer. I was just walking through
the market digging
Just to finish up from last week, just for the fun
of playing with ideas, *not* to argue or claim the
rightness or superiority of those ideas or
anything like that. The short version is:
Thanks but no thanks on Ramana, Edg. I've read him
before, and there was no strong resonance for me
there.
Turq, excellent points (below) and I feel that both Edg and you are
both following Basho's point of seeking what the men of old sought.
What makes both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta different (IMO) from
other teachers, Maharishi included, is that they both emphasize the
seeker's own
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Turq, excellent points (below) and I feel that both Edg and you
are both following Basho's point of seeking what the men of old
sought.
What makes both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta different (IMO)
from
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edg,
Happy that you got off on my rap enough to write
all this, and happy that it made you happy to
write it. But you're still selling, and I'm not
a prospective buyer. I was just walking through
the market digging
TurquoiseB wrote:
It seems to me that the concept of relative creation
being separate from the Absolute, or existing in some
kind of fallen state as the sin of manifestation
is based on having *started* one's philosophical
ponderings by accepting as a given an assumption.
That the world is
--- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
It seems to me that the concept of relative
creation
being separate from the Absolute, or existing in
some
kind of fallen state as the sin of
manifestation
is based on having *started* one's philosophical
Comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq,
I wish I had the writing skills to do what I want to do in this
post.
But, NO ONE has such skills.
All the scriptures of the world were written by the smartest folks
possible, and
I wonder if Barry read the Buddha's
first sermon. Go figure.
Peter wrote:
Yeah, that Barry is a real spiritual 'tard!
Turq wrote:
Buddhism -- all the good stuff about meditation,
but without all that God stuff.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/139679
Edg,
I've been thinking about this primal identification
thang that you mentioned earlier, and have decided to
spend my last post of the week pondering it further.
I won't be able to follow up on any ideas you have
to offer on this subject until Saturday, but hopefully
you'll have some, and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq,
I wish I had the writing skills to do what I want to do in this
post.
But, NO ONE has such skills.
All the scriptures of the world were written by the smartest folks
possible, and none of them ever
What does the self fear Most?-
The small self, or egoic self, fears most, it's own death.
It's own death arrives, at the moment the intellect decides to give up
trying to figure it all out, and becomes 'Transclucent'.
Therefore, the small self, ego, dies, to itself, it no longer exists.
Poof,
--- Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does the self fear Most?-
The small self, or egoic self, fears most, it's own
death.
It's own death arrives, at the moment the intellect
decides to give up
trying to figure it all out, and becomes
'Transclucent'.
Therefore, the small
Barry's ego puts on a show of pretending that it has a handle on itself.
Good insight, but I would question if Barry's ego is the only ego
doing this? Seems to be lots of it going around.
http://tinyurl.com/2j3yaf
The above might be a good analog for all of us ego lovers. Here's a
guy who LITERALLY has a handle on four other selves.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.. (Seinfeld)
Click on the Christopher.wmv link.
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, martyboi
http://tinyurl.com/2j3yaf
The above might be a good analog for all of us ego lovers. Here's a
guy who LITERALLY has a handle on four other selves.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.. (Seinfeld)
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, martyboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry's
Turq,
Well aren't we just a little busy bee lately. Good form, good
concepts, glad your small self is getting its clap on.
I was surprised that you used the bardo concept -- er, do you believe
that the astral/causal body actually can exist without a living
physical nervous system?
If so,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Being forgotten.
It fears oblivion.
IMO, it's not even that the self fears death
itself. Most selves have caught a clue and have
realized that they're gonna die, and have come
to some sense of comfort with
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's interesting about this post is that Barry appears,
out of all the main posters on this forum, to have the
biggest ego of all of them. He celebrates his ego [self]
in his posts - and appears to have all of the
TurquoiseB wrote:
I'll answer this, even though it's a bit of a slam,
because it opens the possibility for a discussion
that I don't think I've seen here before.
It's related to comments I made about love vs. lust
recently. It's clearly possible to be as *attached*
to love as it is to
Turq,
Would you agree that, for you, the word identification has the same
definition as attachment? That's my stance.
The ego cannot be ended, (since it doesn't exist,) but the choosing
process of identifying it as the I CAN be ended, and once this
inordinate attentioning on one small aspect of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq,
Would you agree that, for you, the word identification has
the same definition as attachment? That's my stance.
Hmmm. I've never really thought in those terms. I'll
try to do so on the fly here.
My first
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
What's interesting about this post is that Barry appears,
out of all the main posters on this forum, to have the
biggest ego of all of them. He
34 matches
Mail list logo
