Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 You can usually tell the weight of a person's burden by the intensity of their aggression. I admit that my poem was ugly. But I never said it was about anyone. You merely inferred it. These were just images that came to my mind when I thought about Pete: not Pete. Notice that neither T nor I have ever resorted to name calling nor obscene language, which both you and Pete have. I'd say T and I are more creative than you and Pete. More emancipated from the illusion of identity. I know, as I say, that you aren't Bill. But you still seem attached to that illusion. T and I know that we aren't anybody. The difference between T and I is that he uses one set of metaphors to renounce the rest, and I use another set, to renounce the rest. I renounce all metaphors, including that of love and ease. For me, love and ease are merely the renunciation of all metaphors. Ease off As love ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > You can usually tell the weight of a person's burden by the intensity > of their aggression. I admit that my poem was ugly. But I never said > it was about anyone. You merely inferred it. These were just images > that came to my mind when I thought about Pete: not Pete. you didn't say it was about anyone -- irrelevant. It is clear who it was about. You even admit they were images that came to mind when you thought about Pete. So it was about Pete. Pretty simple. I called it a cheap shot because putting it as a poem like that doesn't give the other person much basis for responding. Which is why I particularly felt the need to speak up in Pete's defense. But I'm glad you did it because it showed me that your LOVE LOVE LOVE mantra covers what isn't so loverly. As I said, you showed your colors loud and clear. Bill > > Notice that neither T nor I have ever resorted to name calling nor > obscene language, which both you and Pete have. I'd say T and I are > more creative than you and Pete. More emancipated from the illusion > of identity. > > I know, as I say, that you aren't Bill. But you still seem attached > to that illusion. T and I know that we aren't anybody. > > The difference between T and I is that he uses one set of metaphors to > renounce the rest, and I use another set, to renounce the rest. > > I renounce all metaphors, including that of love and ease. > > For me, love and ease are merely the renunciation of all metaphors. > > Ease off > As love > > ~*~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > You can usually tell the weight of a person's burden by the intensity > > of their aggression. I admit that my poem was ugly. But I never said > > it was about anyone. You merely inferred it. These were just images > > that came to my mind when I thought about Pete: not Pete. > > you didn't say it was about anyone -- irrelevant. > It is clear who it was about. You even admit they > were images that came to mind when you thought > about Pete. So it was about Pete. Pretty simple. > > I called it a cheap shot because putting it as a > poem like that doesn't give the other person much > basis for responding. Which is why I particularly > felt the need to speak up in Pete's defense. > > But I'm glad you did it because it showed me that > your LOVE LOVE LOVE mantra covers what isn't so > loverly. As I said, you showed your colors loud and > clear. > > Bill > > > > > > > Notice that neither T nor I have ever resorted to name calling nor > > obscene language, which both you and Pete have. I'd say T and I are > > more creative than you and Pete. More emancipated from the illusion > > of identity. > > > > I know, as I say, that you aren't Bill. But you still seem attached > > to that illusion. T and I know that we aren't anybody. > > > > The difference between T and I is that he uses one set of metaphors to > > renounce the rest, and I use another set, to renounce the rest. > > > > I renounce all metaphors, including that of love and ease. > > > > For me, love and ease are merely the renunciation of all metaphors. > > > > Ease off > > As love > > > > ~*~ > > > Whatever, Bill L ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > SW: You can usually tell the weight of a person's burden by the > intensity > of their aggression. > > P: By aggression read: The degree in which they point my shortcomings > out. > > SW: I admit that my poem was ugly. > > P: No it wasn't. It was rather well done, and clever. It > showed a candid picture of your true feelings. > > SW: But I never said > it was about anyone. You merely inferred it. > > P: Well, you disappoint me son! I never suspected > you of throwing stones, and trying to hide. Not very > mature, I say. > > SW: Notice that neither T nor I have ever resorted to name calling nor > obscene language, which both you and Pete have. > > P: Bold lying too? Please point toward any obscene language directed > toward you. > > SW: I'd say T and I are > more creative than you and Pete. More emancipated from the illusion > of identity. > > P: So, you and T are two peas in a pod, now? > Maybe T will object to that honor. > So, there are degrees in no identification? What degree have you > attained? > > > P continues. L ~*~ 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.