I am sorry about that. The contents and the intent of my questions are
not clearly stated, and so I withdraw the questions. I am quite certain
this issue will raise its head again in the near future.


--- In, Maria Lopez <flordel...@...> wrote:
> ED:
> Wouldn't be more practical and much more of a shortcut looking into
yourself and see what is there?.  Why do you want to know what is in me
and not what is in you?.
> I don't understand very well your question: "is that how you actually
experience yourself or is it a conception or an act of faith"? It sounds
a nonsense question. kind of entanglement of words and concepts. This is
what one gets when depends upon the wikipedia dictionary and other
definitions sources but not as much as within resources.  Repeating what
you hear won't do the trick either.
> Mayka

> --- In, Maria Lopez flordeloto@ wrote:
> > Thanks for clarification Chris. Definetely in that respect all in me
too is a massive illusion. --M
> M, is that how you actually experience yourself or is it a conception
or an act of faith? --E
> ----
> > I meant my idea of myself, especially as having some spiritual
significance, is not reality.  --C
> Conceptions are just conceptions, conjured up by the discursiveÂ
mind. One would be deluded to *believe* them to be 'true' or 'not true'.
> ----
> > I'm not an illusion.  The only thing that is an illusion is the
nonsense in me.  --M
> Do you *really* experience the nonsense in you as 'illusory'? What
about the good in you? Is it illusory too?  --E
> ----
> > Aren't we all!  --C
> We may or may not experience ourselves and/or others as
> For the over 99.9999%, stating that they themselves or others are
illusory are acts of faith.  --E
> ----
> > Bill Smart himself is also an illusion. Don't atttach any spiritual
significant.  --A
> Wouldn't it be illusory to *believe* you if we didn't experience Bill
that way?  --E
> ----

Reply via email to