|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: now & zennow & zen
Date: Dec 12, 2006 21:42
"Robert Epstein" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Q7Mfh.6725$bj5.2490@trnddc07...
> now & zen wrote:
>
>> "Keynes" earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
>> news:aq3hn258ead2jcinkk4lj18uluirpuncf3@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:21:14 GMT, "now & zen" netzero.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>"Monique Y. Mudama" bounceswoosh.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:slrnendmlu.hps.spam@home.bounceswoosh.org...
>>>>
>>>>>On 2006-12-06, now & zen penned:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Robert Epstein" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:Kaudh.1045$4p2.897@trndny07...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>well I'm doing that however I can. in the meantime you keep seeing ...
|
| Show full article (2.97Kb) |
|
| |
1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: now & zennow & zen
Date: Dec 12, 2006 21:32
>
> "stumper" newvessel.com> wrote in message
> news:7LKdnSkeq_ep8-LYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> P.K. Harvey wrote:
>>> stumper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you have to be mindful to be aware?
>>>
>>> Have to...or just do so freely by choice? Nah. I'm not going there.
>>>
>>> Yeah. No distinction between the two. Utterly interdependent and
>>> mutually arising. No awareness without mindfulness, no mindfulness
>>> without awareness. Like I said, I'm not sure what you think the
>>> difference is between the two. Is practice different from
enlightenment?
>>>
>>> P.K.
>>> ...
|
| Show full article (0.99Kb) |
|
| |
2 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Robert EpsteinRobert Epstein
Date: Dec 12, 2006 21:29
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>>
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Noah Sombrero:
>>>
>>>> Tang Huyen:
>>>>
>>>>> Please be as severe to me as you can. Mere words on
>>>>> the screen won't hurt me but only teach...
|
| Show full article (2.93Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: stumperstumper
Date: Dec 12, 2006 20:57
brian mitchell wrote:
> Déjà _Fu wrote:
>
>> brian mitchell wrote:
>
>>> . . . the most fundamental claim
>>> of scientistiticalism is untestable, so it rests on a turtle like
>>> everything else.
>
>> :) I didn't even know we had a "fundamental claim"!
>
> I've made one on your behalf, which is: that the laws of physics operate
> whether or not they are observed to do so. Thus, even when the last
> observing consciousness blinks out, the remaining universe rolls sweetly
> along.
We all know dead people leave a body.
Are you sure they are not suffering anymore?
--
~Stumper
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: brian mitchellbrian mitchell
Date: Dec 12, 2006 19:50
Hollywood Lee wrote:
An informative read. Thanks.
> Then I started baking mango pies.
So I take it that in your view caring about this stuff is not compatible
with serious Buddhist practice?
|
| |
|
2 Comments |
|
  |
Author: P.K. HarveyP.K. Harvey
Date: Dec 12, 2006 19:20
"stumper" newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:7LKdnSkeq_ep8-LYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> P.K. Harvey wrote:
>> stumper wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have to be mindful to be aware?
>>
>> Have to...or just do so freely by choice? Nah. I'm not going there.
>>
>> Yeah. No distinction between the two. Utterly interdependent and
>> mutually arising. No awareness without mindfulness, no mindfulness
>> without awareness. Like I said, I'm not sure what you think the
>> difference is between the two. Is practice different from enlightenment?
>>
>> P.K.
>>
>
> Can you be mindful without intending to do so?
Again, what's the difference between the two?
|
| Show full article (0.80Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: Monique Y. MudamaMonique Y. Mudama
Date: Dec 12, 2006 19:13
On 2006-12-08, Evelyn Ruut penned:
>
>
> Wow. I guess I am just a naughty buddhist girl, but I was that way
> when I wasn't buddhist too.... LOL!
Maybe you just didn't know you were a buddhist?
> There are plenty of women who just want to -- you know- too, but we
> want it WITH the intimacy thing, not without it. Why have
> impersonal stupid sex with someone who isn't worth talking with
> afterwards? If you are gonna get all sweaty, and have wild hot
> monkey sex, it is infinitely better with someone who knows you,
> knows the right moves, and whom you really like as a human being,
> and who really likes you as a human being. Not to even mention
> someone with whom you have committments, shared possessions, shared
> money, and a shared past and future with, engendering trust and
> openness. Ad a little love and you have the closest thing to bliss
> in this world.
|
| Show full article (1.07Kb) |
|
5 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Monique Y. MudamaMonique Y. Mudama
Date: Dec 12, 2006 19:07
On 2006-12-08, Keynes penned:
>
> I've warned my daughters that men are scum. They didn't believe me.
> (At first.)
Who posted that story about expectations and what you get?
(IE the gas station attendant who asked newcomers what people were
like back where they came from, and said yup, you'll find it's about
the same here whatever the answer).
> I spend a lot of time disgusting my wife who will do it but never
> speak of it. She has her own language of sex and anatomy because
> the common words just aren't nice. (A good and true catholic girl.)
Oh. So she'd probably be offended by my favorite word for the female
anatomy ... I mean, really, what's wrong with the word "cunt"?
Certainly better than vagina, "vag" (ugh), twat (double ugh!) ...
|
| Show full article (3.66Kb) |
|
3 Comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: P.K. HarveyP.K. Harvey
Date: Dec 12, 2006 18:54
"stumper" newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:NrSdnd32vZlF-eLYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> P.K. Harvey wrote:
>> "stumper" newvessel.com> wrote in message
>> news:i7WcnYKu8tzFSOPYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>> P.K. Harvey wrote:
>>>> "Robert Epstein" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:o17fh.399$yZ4.381@trnddc05...
>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> P.K. Harvey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "stumper" newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9FudnbLL2ICVa-vYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P.K. Harvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "stumper" newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:9gadnT6ME6dvI-vYUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>>>>>>> ...
|
| Show full article (5.49Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|