--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> <jflanegi@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
<jstein@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > <snip> Hey, it's just the Paradox of Brahman.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all- its the failure of you and sparaig
> > > > > to just deal with Peter
> > > > > as Peter, and instead thinking that he should act
> > > > > differently than he is because he was talking about
> > > > > enlightened states earler.
> > > >
> > > > Every aspect of Peter's response oozed attachment.
> > >
> > > Attachment was oozing, but there was no Peter.
> > >
> > I don't get it- please explain. Thanks.
>
> No "I" to take authorship of the response that
> Lawson says oozed attachment, just the three
> gunas interacting.
>
Who's attachment was it then?
