Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Physical pain is inevitable, however, suffering is an option. http://www.sheilah.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Sheilah " <sheilah@s...> wrote: > > Physical pain is inevitable, however, suffering is an option. > > http://www.sheilah.net who's turn is it for this one? i'll take the next if nobody objects eric ps: note that she's got a point this time, let's add that pain is a contact that needs to be defined instead of avoided Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " eric paroissien " <brahmanshines@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Sheilah " <sheilah@s...> wrote: > > > > Physical pain is inevitable, however, suffering is an option. > > > > http://www.sheilah.net > > who's turn is it for this one? > i'll take the next if nobody objects > eric > ps: note that she's got a point this time, let's add that pain is a > contact that needs to be defined instead of avoided It's an artificial distinction, Eric, although one people like to make for various reasons. When pain is, it is. When it's done, it's done. When suffering is, it is. When it's done, it's done. Options don't pertain, except to a mind considering its options. No investment in mind, no concern about what is or isn't optional. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " eric paroissien " > <brahmanshines@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Sheilah " <sheilah@s...> wrote: > > > > > > Physical pain is inevitable, however, suffering is an option. > > > > > > http://www.sheilah.net > > > > who's turn is it for this one? > > i'll take the next if nobody objects > > eric > > ps: note that she's got a point this time, let's add that pain is a > > contact that needs to be defined instead of avoided > > It's an artificial distinction, Eric, although > one people like to make for various reasons. > > When pain is, it is. When it's done, it's done. > > When suffering is, it is. When it's done, it's done. > > Options don't pertain, except to a mind considering > its options. > > No investment in mind, no concern about what is or > isn't optional. > > -- Dan yes Dan, i was stuck in my recent " point of contact " epiphany, where the 'me' is only the succession of the various contacts with " obstacles " and " events " ; it is a joy to see it pop up and vanish like a school of kingfishers diving in turn in the sea to get their fish (sometimes they miss) 'me' being the surface of the water eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 > It's an artificial distinction, Eric, although > one people like to make for various reasons. To say it is an " artificial distinction " is a distinction... An artificial one? Bill - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Nisargadatta > Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:06 AM Re: Options > Nisargadatta , " eric paroissien " > <brahmanshines@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Sheilah " <sheilah@s...> wrote: > > > > > > Physical pain is inevitable, however, suffering is an option. > > > > > > http://www.sheilah.net > > > > who's turn is it for this one? > > i'll take the next if nobody objects > > eric > > ps: note that she's got a point this time, let's add that pain is a > > contact that needs to be defined instead of avoided > > It's an artificial distinction, Eric, although > one people like to make for various reasons. > > When pain is, it is. When it's done, it's done. > > When suffering is, it is. When it's done, it's done. > > Options don't pertain, except to a mind considering > its options. > > No investment in mind, no concern about what is or > isn't optional. > > -- Dan > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 > yes Dan, > i was stuck in my recent " point of contact " epiphany, where the 'me' > is only the succession of the various contacts with " obstacles " > and " events " ; it is a joy to see it pop up and vanish like a school > of kingfishers diving in turn in the sea to get their fish (sometimes > they miss) > 'me' being the surface of the water > eric Yeah, intriguing stuff, these points of contact! (I won't say it, I won't say it, I won't say it. " Who sees it pop up and vanish? " Damn, I said it. Damn, I said it.) :-) Not saying anything, Your local point-of-contact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > It's an artificial distinction, Eric, although > > one people like to make for various reasons. > To say it is an " artificial distinction " is a distinction... > An artificial one? > > Bill Bill, you're being silly. To say that an artificial distinction is a distinction, is also a distinction. An artificial one being made about an artificial one? Yours from the hall of silly ad infinitum mirrors, where rejoinders are provided infinitely out of context, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 > Bill, you're being silly. What, me silly? As for context, I've lost it on this one. Perhaps if I saw more of the original post... As it is, I have no clue as to what my point might have been. Hmmm... I wonder if it was a rejoinder out of context.... Bill - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Nisargadatta > Friday, January 16, 2004 1:19 PM Re: Options > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > It's an artificial distinction, Eric, although > > > one people like to make for various reasons. > > To say it is an " artificial distinction " is a distinction... > > An artificial one? > > > > Bill > > Bill, you're being silly. > > To say that an artificial distinction is a distinction, > is also a distinction. > > An artificial one being made about an artificial one? > > Yours from the hall of silly ad infinitum mirrors, > where rejoinders are provided infinitely out of > context, > Dan > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > yes Dan, > > i was stuck in my recent " point of contact " epiphany, where > the 'me' > > is only the succession of the various contacts with " obstacles " > > and " events " ; it is a joy to see it pop up and vanish like a school > > of kingfishers diving in turn in the sea to get their fish > (sometimes > > they miss) > > 'me' being the surface of the water > > eric > > Yeah, intriguing stuff, these points of contact! > > (I won't say it, I won't say it, I won't say it. > > " Who sees it pop up and vanish? " > > Damn, I said it. > > Damn, I said it.) > > :-) > > Not saying anything, > Your local point-of-contact oh !! you're the local point-of-contact, 'am glad i caugh you 'cause ye see i bought this mind vacuum clearner the other day and it juss don't work ye see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Bill, you're being silly. > What, me silly? > > As for context, I've lost it on this one. > Perhaps if I saw more of the original post... > > As it is, I have no clue as to what my point might > have been. > > Hmmm... I wonder if it was a rejoinder out of context.... > > Bill so it does work for you at least... you spin yourself silly with the blackhole semantics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Bill, you're being silly. > What, me silly? > > As for context, I've lost it on this one. > Perhaps if I saw more of the original post... > > As it is, I have no clue as to what my point might > have been. > > Hmmm... I wonder if it was a rejoinder out of context.... > > Bill I joinder in the heated context. Later, I rejoinder. But then, she contexted my advance. I reversed my advance, but lost my point. I said I never lost my point before I rejoinder, but she said she'd rather not see any more of my original post. Seeing as how my reversed advances were being hotly contexted, I cluelessly realized I had lost it on that one. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.