A very poor trap you have laid with this question, as it relies on your
assumed belief I must have a 'view' or 'purpose' (not to mention an "I")
as you do, so again you come up empty.
I have no use for a 'view' of talking, I simply talk. I have no
'purpose' for sharing words via these emails, I simply share these
emails. I can create and/or adopt a view to make a point, but otherwise
it's pointless.
Why do you ask? (Rhetorical, though I really shouldn't need to point
that out)
KG
On 9/8/2012 7:33 PM, Edgar Owen wrote:
Yes; and then what is your view of what talking is? What is the
'purpose' of your posts; WHY do you post?
Edgar
On Sep 8, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
Silence is simply silence, only appearing rude when believed to be
someones silence.
KG
On 9/8/2012 7:18 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
KG,
Sometimes the talking is ruder than the silence!
:-)
Edgar
On Sep 8, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
Either way, makes me out to be a thief. ;)
Silence cannot be shared, so we interrupt it with talking so as not
to appear rude.
KG
On 9/8/2012 1:13 AM, Bill! wrote:
Kris,
When you say it I prefer 'Suchness'.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Kristopher Grey <kris@...>
wrote:
>
> "More" or less, misses the point again.
>
> There is nothing to do to realize this. There is only this
experiencing.
> 'You' and your 'experience(s)' of objects/events are but aspects of
> this, arising and passing. Nothing could be simpler.
>
> Some realize this some don't. Doesn't change this. How could it
[rhet]?
> I realize you may only see and/or express this otherwise. Such
is the
> nature of appearances. Suchness ("Just this" if you prefer).
>
> KG
>
>
> On 9/8/2012 12:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > Kris,
> >
> > More important than whether or not either of these personages
actually
> > existed or how accurate the [translated] 3rd-person accounts
of what
> > they did and what they said is that YOU EXPERIENCE what they
are said
> > to have experienced.
> >
> > And you can do that. I'm confident 10's of thousands or many
more than
> > that have.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/7/2012 7:39 AM, mike brown wrote:
> > > > There is a *big* difference between these stories of
Buddha and
> > > > Christ. With Buddha's story it makes no difference whether
you
> > believe
> > > > Buddha was a real man or not...
> > >
> > > So one you accept more readily because you believe it to
likely be
> > > allegorical, the other you reject because you believe it
claims to be a
> > > factual historical account? Surely you can see the irony in
this.
> > >
> > > Every consider both/neither? That it doesn't mater whether
EITHER of
> > > these are stories of actual/factual others or not - as they
only point
> > > to selfless realization, and reintegration/embodiment? That
they're
> > only
> > > expressions of the way, and are not offering anyone else's
> > > stories/practices/promises as things to cling to or reject?
People take
> > > that upon themselves.
> > >
> > > KG
> > >
> >
> >
>
