Bill, It was a buddhist monk. I think he's british. It's probably the general perception there.
Siska -----Original Message----- From: "Bill!" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:18:34 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle Siska, I don't know what who told you that 'deserve' implies punishment, but they are wrong. Depending on what you do you may 'deserve' punishment, or you may 'deserve' a reward. It is true the saying '...get what we deserve' usually implies punishment because it is usually used in negative circumstances; but it does simply mean what you originally thought, 'we reap what we sow'. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], siska_cen@... wrote: > > Bill, > > English being my second language, sometimes I'm not aware of connotation > implied in the words. It reminds me of once when I said, "I believe we all > get what we deserve". To me, it simply means we reap what we sow, be it good > or bad. But I was corrected because 'deserve' implies punishment, of which I > wasn't aware. > > This is a good reminder. Thank you. > > Siska > -----Original Message----- > From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:16:51 > To: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > Anthony, Mike and Siska, > > Well you all used or continued to repeat the word 'condemn' which implies > it's a bad thing. You didn't say your were 'rewarded' with the life of a > fox... > > But I of all people know how tricky the English language can be when talking > about these types of things, so I'll take your word for it. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > Bill, I never said it is a bad (or good) thing. I don't think Mike did > > either ;-) > > > > Siska > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@> > > Sender: [email protected] > > Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:22:41 > > To: <[email protected]> > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > ...and what's so bad about living as a fox for 500 years? > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > Ah, got your point. > > > > > > > there is no self, yet.. > > > There is no self, no yet ;-) > > > > > > Siska > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@> > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 07:28:05 > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > > > Hi Siska, > > >  > > > Oh, I see. I thought you were asking if saying, "There is and isn't a > > > diifference" condemns you to 500 years as a fox. Really, it's just a > > > question of neither being absolute nor subjective. For example, there is > > > no self, yet... > > >  > > > Mike > > > > > > From: "siska_cen@" <siska_cen@> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2011, 11:28 > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > > > > > >  > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > Don't really get it, if what were true? > > > > > > Siska > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@> > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 03:17:07 +0100 (BST) > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > > > ReplyTo: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > >  > > > Hi Siska, > > >  > > > If that were true, then what wouldn't condemn you to 500 years as a fox? > > >  > > > Mike > > > > > > From: "siska_cen@" <siska_cen@> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Monday, 5 September 2011, 18:48 > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > > > > > >  > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > In other words, there is and there isn't a difference. > > > > > > I like this. > > > > > > Would statements implying there is or isn't a difference condemn you to > > > 500 years as a fox too? :-) > > > > > > Siska > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@> > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:17:44 +0100 (BST) > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > > > ReplyTo: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > >  > > > > > > > > > >In truth, Two and One are in support of one another. > > > > > > >>Here it seems that Rev Harvey makes distinction between Two and One. > > > >>Are they really different at all? > > > > > > Siska, > > > > > > Just as Bill! is condemed to live 500 years as a fox for saying > > > that an enlightened person isn't subject to karma (just as he > > > would be if he said that an enlightened person is > > > subject to karma), so with this question. There is no yes or no. > > > In other words, there is and there isn't a difference. > > > > > > Mike  > > > > > >
