--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:38 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Non-Duality Cartoons > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > > > On Behalf Of jyouells2000 > > > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:54 PM > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Non-Duality Cartoons > > > > > > My condolences as well Geezer, truer devotion I have not seen... > > > Every time I loose a dog, another shows up 6 to 9 months later > > > to correct my errant ways. > > > > > > Mine, too. Dogs are great. I think Nabby's problem is that he doesn't have > > > one, so his heart is underdeveloped and he ridicules me for having and > > > helping them. What do you say, Nabby, is there a little pooch in your > > > future? > > > > I had several as a child, these days a busy chedule does't give room for > > one. Perhaps later. > > > > Good answer. Thanks. Sometimes you've said things which gave me the > > impression that those who like dogs are somehow "inferior", which I've found > > to be an India bias. > > I could say alot about this; crying for a dead pet for example. > Why are some fools crying for a pet which could be perfectly happy in a dead > state, striving as it is for further accomplishments and finally a human > nervous-system ? > They are reminded of their own eventual death, and the sense of loss is > self-pity rather than love for the animal. > In my experience seing people "grieve" for a pet is purely pathetic founded > on intense ignorance and "love" for everything past. > > Then there is the rather complicated factor of how much energy an animal > could draw from your own resourses. Touch an animal and you will immediately > know the answer to this question from the immediate reaction in your hand and > arm. > Some animals are harmless and will be good for you. Others are drawn to you > because it is desperate to get a human nervous-system, or it is ill and wants > your energy to be healed. > > India bias ? Not really. > ----------------- Nabby parrots the thirty-plus years TMO propaganda against animal companions. What Nabby will never realize is that MMY and the TMO, pretending to offer loving wisdom and guidance to TBers, in reality sought to maximize TBers allegiance to MMY and his TMO by marginalizing those who competed with them for the time and attention of the TBers. With slogans like 'The Movement belongs to those who move', etc. animal companions, and sometimes reluctant spouses, lost out to the corporate-like demands of the TMO to serve the need of MMY/TMO by putting MMY/TMO first. The widespread celibacy found in the TMO full-timers is another example of the "Movement first" orientation that was expected of 'inside ' TBers.
It's amusing to read Nabby's rationalizations regarding the dangers of animal companions. I wonder what he thinks about celibacy. I wouldn't be surprised if nary another human has had sexual relations with Nabby for over thirty years, either.
