Yes; and then what is your view of what talking is? What is the 'purpose' of your posts; WHY do you post?
Edgar On Sep 8, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > Silence is simply silence, only appearing rude when believed to be someones > silence. > > KG > > > > On 9/8/2012 7:18 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: >> >> KG, >> >> >> Sometimes the talking is ruder than the silence! >> :-) >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Sep 8, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Either way, makes me out to be a thief. ;) >>> >>> >>> Silence cannot be shared, so we interrupt it with talking so as not to >>> appear rude. >>> >>> >>> KG >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/8/2012 1:13 AM, Bill! wrote: >>>> >>>> Kris, >>>> >>>> When you say it I prefer 'Suchness'. >>>> >>>> ...Bill! >>>> >>>> --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > "More" or less, misses the point again. >>>> > >>>> > There is nothing to do to realize this. There is only this experiencing. >>>> > 'You' and your 'experience(s)' of objects/events are but aspects of >>>> > this, arising and passing. Nothing could be simpler. >>>> > >>>> > Some realize this some don't. Doesn't change this. How could it [rhet]? >>>> > I realize you may only see and/or express this otherwise. Such is the >>>> > nature of appearances. Suchness ("Just this" if you prefer). >>>> > >>>> > KG >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 9/8/2012 12:11 AM, Bill! wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Kris, >>>> > > >>>> > > More important than whether or not either of these personages actually >>>> > > existed or how accurate the [translated] 3rd-person accounts of what >>>> > > they did and what they said is that YOU EXPERIENCE what they are said >>>> > > to have experienced. >>>> > > >>>> > > And you can do that. I'm confident 10's of thousands or many more than >>>> > > that have. >>>> > > >>>> > > ...Bill! >>>> > > >>>> > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, >>>> > > Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote: >>>> > > > >>>> > > > On 9/7/2012 7:39 AM, mike brown wrote: >>>> > > > > There is a *big* difference between these stories of Buddha and >>>> > > > > Christ. With Buddha's story it makes no difference whether you >>>> > > believe >>>> > > > > Buddha was a real man or not... >>>> > > > >>>> > > > So one you accept more readily because you believe it to likely be >>>> > > > allegorical, the other you reject because you believe it claims to >>>> > > > be a >>>> > > > factual historical account? Surely you can see the irony in this. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Every consider both/neither? That it doesn't mater whether EITHER of >>>> > > > these are stories of actual/factual others or not - as they only >>>> > > > point >>>> > > > to selfless realization, and reintegration/embodiment? That they're >>>> > > only >>>> > > > expressions of the way, and are not offering anyone else's >>>> > > > stories/practices/promises as things to cling to or reject? People >>>> > > > take >>>> > > > that upon themselves. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > KG >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> > > >
