Hey, Nabby, I respect your right to think differently and I enjoy reading your
unique perspective much of the time. But that remark is unfair and you're
getting personal. Lurk made a statement from his heart in response to a
question from me. It's judgmental and beyond your scope of knowledge to rule
that his homelife detracted from his enlightenment. It's a discriminatory
philosophy anyway to believe that single people are holier than householders. I
didn't argue with your first post saying as much, because you have a right to
believe what you believe, even a notion like that. But to apply that measuring
stick to someone personally and make a ruling on another person's life is
hurtful and not in the spirit of evolution or productive discussion. Maybe you
didn't intend to be hurtful, but it sure came out that way.
Bronte
nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> Sounds like boring familylife.
>
> Lurk:
> Sorry to say I don't find life boring, family or otherwise.
>
> Nab:
> Anyone can have children - and they
> > do !
>
> Lurk: Anyone can, of course. But spending the time to try to give
> them a foundation of self confidence & happiness- that's another
story.
>
> Nab: Not having them is a great blessing.
>
> Lurk: Nab, I guess I just wasn't able to achieve bramacharya like
you
> evidently have. I tried, but I couldn't deny who I was. And I
must
> say, I feel my spiritual growth has benefitted. YMMV.
>
> lurk
If having them does not shift attention away from meditation to
diapers, as it obviously did for the original poster, then why not.
To have them can't ruin your spiritual life if you don't want an
excuse to quit.
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
