Geez, Buck, sounds like you better get crackin' and do your homework...right this minute! Now, don't be tardy with your assignment or your schoolmarm, Barry, is going to whack you with a ruler and make you wear a dunce cap. Nah, forget it, play hooky and avoid the humiliation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > Having discipline (as in attending to things) in spiritual > > > > practice. > > > > > > Who is more "disciplined" in their spiritual practice, > > > Buck -- the person who believes that spiritual practice > > > is limited to meditation, going to the domes or to visit > > > the occasional saint and stuff like that, or the person > > > who believes that everything he or she does all day, > > > every day, no matter how insignificant or mundane, is > > > part of his or her spiritual practice? > > > > Well yes, is all part of the experience and the practice of > > discernment has a lot to do with the spin of the subtle > > spiritual system of the soul. I should suspect that science > > will show it too in time as they would look further in to > > spirituality. Like seeing the neuro-physiology of sin also > > by contrast with with what they are finding as the physiology > > of spiritual practices. In the science as it is in the > > experience. That contrast might well teach you to repent > > your ways if the scriptural advice won't. > > Buck, > > I ignored this when you first posted it, because it > seemed to be Yet Another Example Of You Parroting > Someone Else's Ideas And Using Them As A Putdown, > While Acting Out The Role Of Wannabe Guru. But on > the heels of my post about "faith," I'm going to > give a response a shot, to see if there is anything > "in there" in "Buck" that *isn't* a parrot, and can > still think on its own, without the crutch of either > "scripture" or "Gurusez." > > The point I was making that you responded to with > a putdown is that your whole position (which I think > everyone realizes isn't really "your" position but > one that has been told to you that you have bought > into as some kind of "truth") is based on duality, > on separation, and most importantly, on *rejection*. > > You seem to believe that there are some behaviors > that *in themselves* are "bad" or "lesser" than > other behaviors, or that are "less evolved" than > some other behaviors. And that one has to "discrim- > inate" to *reject* these behaviors and actions. > > I do not believe this. Instead, I believe that there > are very few actions that are de facto less than life- > supporting (the taking of life being one of them), > and that prudish, reject-the-pleasures-of-the-world > pseudoseekers such as yourself (or at the very least, > such as your act recently) tend to waste a great deal > of time and energy rejecting the "small shit," and in > so doing reject much of the joy of life itself. > > So I'm calling you on your holier-than-thou bullshit. > I want you to spell out in no uncertain terms *which* > actions you imagine me to be performing that fall > into the category of something I should "repent" > and abandon. Drop the innuendo and get real. > > Then I want you to spell out, in equally precise > terms, the actions you feel are "better" or "more > evolved." Don't just invoke some vague, unspecified > notion of "spiritual practice," define the mother- > fucker. Tell us *exactly* what you imagine a > "spiritual practice" to be. > > And then I want you to give *reasons* for why you > included the things you include in each category. > These reasons cannot include "Someone or some > scripture said so." > > Think you're up to it? >
