Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Gauracandra

Temptation

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

<u>DUTTIYAM PI</u>

 

Originally posted by talasiga:

 

If you cannot recognise that, <u>without</u>

O[bject/s], the S[elf] with D[esire]

does NOT HAVE ANY OPTION TO CHOOSE,

then, sadly, I cannot proceed further with you

at this point in time.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by talasiga:

<u>DUTTIYAM PI</u>

 

The object only has appealing value when I superimpose my notions about that onto it. You cannot designate it temptation just because it exists. That defies by anybody's estimation any kind of morality. From such immorality notion such as fascism deception, dishonesty delusion and the rest of it arise.

 

If you cannot get that then what can else can be said. Posted Image

 

bye for now

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-07-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by suryaz:

I have no idea how the underlining bit happened Posted Image

 

 

(Perhaps not unlike Temptation) !

Posted Image

 

 

Please take responsibility (which you rightly promote)

and fix it up.

The Law of Copyright

requires accuracy of representation.

If you wish to insert something not in the original utterance

editorial convention requires your insertion to be in square brackets

or some separate notation admitting

the change.

 

Shvu is very knowledgeable and might

be able to help you with the underlining.

Otherwise, you should go back to where you quoted me

and in square brackets put a note like: [underlining by Suryaz].

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-06-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by suryaz:

The object only has appealing value when I superimpose my notions about that onto it. ........bye for now

 

Oh ! So now you have introduced

<u>notional</u> temptation ?

It appears that you are suggesting that

Self generated Desire for Object

is due to the Choosing a Notion for superimposition.

 

Thus

T[emptation] is a <u>context</u> where S[elf] with Desire

has option of C[hoice] of N[otion].

 

This is a precise summation of what you just said - generically no different to the earlier summation encapsulating O.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-06-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by talasiga:

(Perhaps not unlike Temptation) !

Posted Image

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-06-2001).]

 

YES! YES! YES! Right On Talasiga Posted Image YES - A mistake, surrounded by confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by suryaz:

YES! YES! YES! Right On Talasiga Posted Image YES - A mistake, surrounded by confusion.

( Posted Image Oh dear - she is trying to beat

me with my own stick.............)

 

Nevertheless all the elements

in the mistake are real

and its result too......

and

you "have no idea how [it] happened"

and when you do work it out

you may no longer be confused

but the mistake won't disappear

and even if you fix it

while it existed the mistake

will have existed

as a real thing.........

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-07-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by talasiga:

( Posted Image Oh dear - she is trying to beat

me with my own stick.............)

 

Nevertheless all the elements

in the mistake are real

and its result too......

and

you "have no idea how [it] happened"

and when you do work it out

you may no longer be confused

but the mistake won't disappear

and even if you fix it

while it existed the mistake

will have existed

as a real thing.........

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-07-2001).]

Talasiga,

 

I will see you at Rathyatra in a day or two (Byron Bay - Dec 30-31 2001, Jan 1 2002).

 

We can talk there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by suryaz:

Talasiga,

 

I will see you at Rathyatra in a day or two (Byron Bay - Dec 30-31 2001, Jan 1 2002).

 

We can talk there.

Suryaz,

 

I'll see you at Rathyatra at Byron Bay tomorrow and new year's eve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by suryaz:

Talasiga,

 

I will see you at Rathyatra in a day or two (Byron Bay - Dec 30-31 2001, Jan 1 2002).

 

We can talk there.

Dear Suryaz,

 

Nice of you to think of me

but I won't be there,

however, if you do see me there

please let me know.

 

I won't be here much either

as for some inexplicable reason

I have not been able to access these forums

for some weeks now.

I've had to go to an internet cafe to post this.

 

As you don't know who I am

I'm sure you won't miss me.

 

Nevertheless, I'm tempted to re-iterate

my address

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-30-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...