Love Is Incapable of Adjustment (((Love is not a Thing of the Mind.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@>

> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit :

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> >

> > Some actually believe *their* words belong to them.

> > Ha!

> >

> > Ownership.

> >

> > The tides of reality sweep beyond the preying thoughts

> > of fools.

> >

> >

> > Bill

> >

> Hello Bill.......I went through a whole diffenent kind of discussion

> and self-analysing process over this very issue with our " Gaurdian in

> Residence " , Pete. It all had to do with quoting " others' " words and

> how that just wasn't Kosher. Maybe it was Buddhist or Christian or

> Islamic but it sure wasn't Kosher in Pete's eyes. You may hear from

> him on how the propitiary rights of *their* words are paramount to

> the survival of our very way of life. Who knows. evidently some of us

> don't understand this.

> ........bob (of many questions and no answers)

>

 

Perhaps you are being very subtle here?

 

a) Pete indicates not " Kosher " to use the words of others ( " owned by

others " )

b) Bill says the notion that anyone owns their " own words " is foolishness.

c) Bob hints that if what Bill says is true then what Pete says

is irrelevant, as " owned by " is a meaningless relation anyhow.

 

I.e. If b) then not-a)

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

But I tend to agree with Pete (to a point) as *real* dialog

is, in my view, a direct result of sticking one's neck out.

And sticking one's neck out by quoting others doesn't happen.

 

But heck, a slice of Krishnamurti or Nisargadatta now in then

can be chock full of vitamins.

 

Sure is hard to generalize, isn't it?

 

Give it any thought at all and before you know it you

have bushy tree of conditionals.

 

 

Bill