Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 In a message dated 3/27/2006 2:54:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, ericparoissien writes: > Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >In a message dated 3/27/2006 12:49:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, > >illusyn writes: > > > >>If I feel " annoyed with " someone, then is that about them > >>or about me? It's about me. It is not about them. So what > >>is for me to deal with? It is for me to recognized that my > >>annoyance is *my issue*, and that to deal with it means to > >>see it as such. Really, if all of that transpires in an open, > >>undistorted way, then it simply evaporates. Once the cycle of > >>blaming is broken the circuit can no longer fuel itself. > >> > >>Bill > > > >L.E: How does this apply when someone is about to shoot and kill > you? Is > >this situation only about you, and not them. Is the " annoyance > 'your issue?' Is > >the bullet moving toward you head, 'your issue?' What you say is > true but is > >only one half of the problem which must include what is outside the > body even > >as it is experienced inside the body. In ordinary life what is > exterior to > >your body has its own life and must be dealt with, related to. > > > >Larry Epston > > this is called the " projective argument " in philosophy; > if your mind is heavy enough you'll bite it (the bullet?) > and dance at the puppet master's finger. > They'll say " yes but what will you say when you die? " > and you'll answer (because it is a big deal to you) > " when i die i'll probably ...this and that " > but as Jesus said: > " let the dead bury (take care of) the dead " > the projective argument will only project as > much of you that is heavy enough to be projected. > > L.E: Some people think that by naming a thing, they have power over a thing. Doctors fall into this. It is an attempt to demonstrate to others superiority and knowledge. It is essentially an arrogant approach. But I ask, how much of you is heavy enough to be projected? Does the one who labels claim total freedom from the subject of his label? Are you so smart that you are free of it? To you, is Bill stating the true facts and I am just entering a false deceitful word game? There for my argument has no basis to be considered because you have labled it as specious? Just for play, how about giving us an answer or is the question raised too unworthy for you to stoop to that level? Bill seems to deny the relevance of an external reality and advocate an internal reality. I say both are significant. Do you have something to add besides your label? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 In a message dated 3/27/2006 8:33:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, illusyn writes: > Bill seems to deny the relevance of an external reality and advocate an > internal reality. I say both are significant. Do you have something > to add > besides your label? > > ~~~~~~~~~ > > Boy have you got that wrong, Larry! > > I believe I have been quite consistent in saying that > to distinguish " inner " from " outer " is a serious confusion. > > Bill L.E: In ordinary life that serious condition is the usual practice. On a deeper level of recognition and experience, there is no division between inner and outer. It is all a flowing process of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Bill seems to deny the relevance of an external reality and advocate an internal reality. I say both are significant. Do you have something to add besides your label? ~~~~~~~~~ Boy have you got that wrong, Larry! I believe I have been quite consistent in saying that to distinguish " inner " from " outer " is a serious confusion. Bill Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/27/2006 2:54:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, > ericparoissien writes: > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > >In a message dated 3/27/2006 12:49:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > >illusyn@ writes: > > > > > >>If I feel " annoyed with " someone, then is that about them > > >>or about me? It's about me. It is not about them. So what > > >>is for me to deal with? It is for me to recognized that my > > >>annoyance is *my issue*, and that to deal with it means to > > >>see it as such. Really, if all of that transpires in an open, > > >>undistorted way, then it simply evaporates. Once the cycle of > > >>blaming is broken the circuit can no longer fuel itself. > > >> > > >>Bill > > > > > >L.E: How does this apply when someone is about to shoot and kill > > you? Is > > >this situation only about you, and not them. Is the " annoyance > > 'your issue?' Is > > >the bullet moving toward you head, 'your issue?' What you say is > > true but is > > >only one half of the problem which must include what is outside the > > body even > > >as it is experienced inside the body. In ordinary life what is > > exterior to > > >your body has its own life and must be dealt with, related to. > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > this is called the " projective argument " in philosophy; > > if your mind is heavy enough you'll bite it (the bullet?) > > and dance at the puppet master's finger. > > They'll say " yes but what will you say when you die? " > > and you'll answer (because it is a big deal to you) > > " when i die i'll probably ...this and that " > > but as Jesus said: > > " let the dead bury (take care of) the dead " > > the projective argument will only project as > > much of you that is heavy enough to be projected. > > > > > L.E: Some people think that by naming a thing, they have power over a thing. > Doctors fall into this. It is an attempt to demonstrate to others superiority > and knowledge. It is essentially an arrogant approach. > But I ask, how much of you is heavy enough to be projected? Does the one > who labels claim total freedom from the subject of his label? Are you so smart > that you are free of it? > To you, is Bill stating the true facts and I am just entering a false > deceitful word game? There for my argument has no basis to be considered because you > have labled it as specious? > Just for play, how about giving us an answer or is the question raised too > unworthy for you to stoop to that level? > Bill seems to deny the relevance of an external reality and advocate an > internal reality. I say both are significant. Do you have something to add > besides your label? > > Larry Epston > > > 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.