On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:15 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It has nothing to do with rules per se but those activities that will support enlightened activity and realization. The vows are there for a reason, they are not just arbitrar
On Jan 12, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote: I mean ultimately if you cannot perceive your consort as pure vision, i.e. as the Deity, the result is NOT going to be enlightenment. Vaj, I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on this a bit. I can see how seeing one's lover as the De
Akashanon writes: I have said, 'hey guys, lets focus on substance.'
TorquiseB writes:
Dude, why don't you try being honest with yourself
for once. What you *meant* by "Let's focus on
substance" was "Let's all talk about what *I* want
to talk about, in the pseudointellectual way I like
to talk ab
TorquiseB writes: snipped
It's ALL very funny, in a weird sort of way.
The laughter is going to win. The clinging
to self is going to lose. That's just the
way the world works.
Tom T:
Of course and that is the real joke. No laughing at them, laughing at
the clinging to the idea that can not b
Spare egg writes:
Of course, Barry has never denied his intent to laugh AT people.
Rather he has embraced and defended it. Seems a not very difficult
job of mind-reading to assume something, comment on that assumption,
and get CONFIRMATION of that assumption and therefore to continue to
assume
http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropph
ysicsaip2005.pdf
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > But, why bother with what often/usually is perceived as an
> > attack, and then criticize for saying "that's an attack?"
>
> I don'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I'll try again, briefly. To laugh *at* someone is,
> virtually by definition, an attack. Confirming that
> one is laughing *at* somebody is therefore equivalent
> to stating one's intention, so no minds need to be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> OTOT, a working set of hypotheses of a persons moods and intentions
> may help one be more sesnsitive. For example, thinking, "It sounds
> like he MAY be mad at something. Just in case, I will be careful not
> to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It has nothing to do with rules per se but those activities that
will
> support enlightened activity and realization. The vows are there
for
> a reason, they are not just arbitrary. We might not like the
gaudy
> sign
101 - 110 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
