--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
> wrote (about Vaj):
> > >
> > > What is this incoherent mess trying to say? More crap
> > > from the faux-Buddhist little Vajee? Buddha spits in
> > > his face.
> >
> > What a flaming asshole you are!
> >
> > If you do half the heart felt humanitarian work this man
> > has done, then you can complain. Holy hell, last I talked
> > to him he'd spent his last three vacations (including all
> > of last Christmas) at children's orphanages. And I bet
> > you and wife no. 2 only have visitation rights for your
> > kids. If only you were half the man, then you might be a
> > real man.
>
> You misunderstand. Jim's outburst above, coming as
> it does from Jim the noted Buddhist authority who is
> convinced that Buddha once said, "God is love," is
> not really coming from Jim. It's a *cosmic* statement,
> coming not from ego or self but from the Whole Tamale,
> God HimSelf, the veritable Big Brahman. As the BB
> explained recently:
>
> It only looks like there is a self certain of its
> beliefs from the outside, but the actual process,
> the subjective experience, is more like an instant-
> aneous self-referral, then instantaneous release,
> with the self-referral result being reported.
> There is in reality no self experienced, and so
> no beliefs or convincing.
>
> :-)
>
> Just pokin' a little fun, Jim. If you think about it,
> and reread your first quote above, you might begin to
> understand why not all of us are convinced that the
> proclamations you consider Absolute Truth are 1) really
> coming from the place you think they are or 2) are
> really true, much less Truth. I guess they *could* be,
> but in that case I'd have to believe that Big Brahman
> really has it in for Vaj, and is working up a big loogie
> to expectorate at him even now, and that's just not my
> idea of how Brahman (or Buddha) spends the day.
>
> :-)
>
> In other words, when you're not acting like an obsessed
> fuck you talk the talk well. It's just that when you
> *are* acting like an obsessed fuck, you don't exactly
> walk the walk of that talk very well. If you're in the
> former state of attention today, can you explain this
> seeming contradiction to us? Is it just the paradox
> of Brahman, or could you possibly be just another limited
> self working its hangups out in public, just like the
> rest of us?
>
I may be mistaken, but reading the above it sure sounds like you are
asking me to explain myself to you, like the parent calling the
errant child on the carpet. I don't know what to say other than I
write what I write, and let it go. If you happen to get some benefit
from it, great! If you don't and would rather call me names, then go
for it. This isn't some contest, where I argue my point, and rebut
yours. If you don't care for what I am writing, just ignore it or do
a spam filter. There are any number of ways you can tune me out if
you choose to.
