I'm in your camp Hernando. If this is Jim, then it's unleashed Jim. 108 has a sharper way about him. And I mean that in a positive way.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick > > yourself in the ass for me. thanks. > > > ROTFL > This post clinches it for me. I've never been convinced that > sandiego108 is Jim, but now I'm almost convinced of the opposite. > > Reasons: > --His syntax strikes me as fundamentally different from Jim's. My > guess is that it's hard to change your writing style and stick with it > consistently over time. It would be great if Judy the editor could > give some insight here. To me they just write differently. > > --sandiego108 has a wicked sense of humor. Jim would often have to > tell people he was laughing at things, lest his comments be taken > otherwise. 108's humor can be biting, and caustic in a no-holds- barred > kind of way. > > --He doesn't talk about himself, his own "enlightenment" or his > devotion to Guru Dev, experiences of Guru Dev, Brahman, etc. My guess > is that Jim would have something to say about MMY's death in that > context. 108 seems not to have that bhakti component to his posts. At > least, I don't see it. He seems more detached than Jim. > > --Jim doesn't read books; sandiego108 appears to. > > --The content of his posts seems to me quite different from Jim's, > more radically relentless in a > unity/non-dual/i-don't-know-wtf-to-call-it kind of way. He pokes and > prods and tweaks peoples' perspectives and beliefs without minding the > reaction. > > --He has never once, in all the time people have accused him of being > Jim, and a poser, risen to the bait. He has neither confirmed nor > denied. Nor has he made any reference to anything Jim said or did. Who > knows, maybe it is the poster formerly known as Jim who has totally > awakened and Jim no longer exists; but I think it is not Jim. > > --Oh yeah--did I mention that he is wickedly funny? > > So, that's my speculation FWIW, which isn't much. I'd be interested in > Judy's take on the syntax thing, or anyone else's on anything. > > Some of us are paying attention even if we are only lurking--and we > don't work for MUM. > > Of course, I could be totally wrong and it is Jim, in which case I'll > just have a little laugh at myself, give him a high five and bow to > the greater insight of those who believe it is. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <sandiego108@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sticheau" <sticheau@> > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> 'Cause, to use Jed's idea, "if it isn't abiding, > > it > > > isn't sh*t." So, to those deep in the nether regions and in the > > know, > > > I ask: Is Tony Nader enlightened? It's a most simple question, Y > > or > > > N. Why do I ask? Because we're all looking for someone to turn to > > > now. We've already demonstrated to one degree or another that we > > > won't turn to ourselves, so if not our own self, then who? > > > > > > I should've skipped the onions tonight, I guess. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick > > yourself in the ass for me. thanks. > > >
