|
Post by lolly on Apr 28, 2020 21:56:39 GMT -5
Practicality. Knowing what is going on at the moment is the key and when you notice the mind has been swept off by reactivity and ingrained tendencies you know what is going on. To suggest we have control over where the mind wanders and what it does is over simplifed to a degree of being dubious. For example, when meditating, the mind wanders off unintended, and suddenly you notice mind has wandered away without first intending to remember that. It is only because of the original intent to feel the air that we notice it at all, but at the moment we do notice it against the original intention, we become conscious of what the mind is doing. At such time it is not necessary to bring your attention back because you realise the mind has wanders by comparison with the original intent, and therefore, the moment at which you notice the wandering mind, you are also aware of your breathing. In terms of quazi-control, you edit: one can only be conscious of this process.The problem we have in meditation is the notion that we made the mind wander off and we make it come back, but of course we did not intend the mind to wander away at all. Quite the contrary. We did not intend to notice it wandered away. And we do not even intentionally bring it back. All we do is set an original intent by thinking 'I shall observe the breath', and even that seems to occur randomly, or set according to a daily meditation schedule. I watch. It's my breath, and so on, fabrices an enduring entity regarded as 'myself'. The Buddha used to say 'mere awareness with mere understanding' to indicate there is no thing at the core to make it me, my, mine or I. This brings us to the mere knowing 'this is what is going on at the moment', expressed by Buddha as 'mere awareness with mere understanding'. 'Understanding' pertains to the immediacy of perception as well as the underling nature of phenomena - Anicca, impermanence, momentariness. Because this regards body/mind or mind and matter, self-knowing is knowing what the mind is doing (as opposed to 'know not what you do').
Ramana took a practical approach, too. He said keep the attention on that one who regards itself as I. Hence, if one has the notion 'my breath', Ramana would query what 'me' refers to, and investigate the place 'I' am located. Buddha took a similar approach by investigating every detail of mind and body to see if there was any quality of self anywhere. Buddha simply took a more detailed approach to include physicality, psychology and the social milieu, and entailed the purification processes that seemed disinterested in. Either way, mindfulness itself is identical according to the mentioned masters. There is no imagination, visualisation, verbalisation, mantra or iconography involved. IOW, there is no volition. observation'. It is to set an intention to investigate very deeply and find out the true nature of 'this'. Buddha was through the body to mind. JK was more psychlogical. (edit: Not really. I read over 20 books by JK in my teens and '20's. His purpose was always to lead beyond psychology. Heard him in person for 3 weeks in April, May 1980, Ojai.). Ramana neglected both to regard the 'I thought', but essence of ardent awareness is common across the board.
By such ardency, the tendency to wander unawares is diminished. Attention lasts longer and the duration of distraction diminishes, and after a while, attentive periods become extensive and you know what is going on most of the time.
If there is looking at the statements in your post (experiment with, not merely read), there is a ~dividing line~ in each of the collective statements of the "persons" ("lolly", Buddha, Ramana, J Krishnamurti). For Gurdjieff this ~dividing line~ is between what's mechanical (happens by itself), and what's not mechanical ( never happens by itself). In a sense yes, but it really pertains to what 'just happens' as observed and what happens as a result of volition. Hence the diad is pertains to the distinction between volitional and non-volitional more than it does the things that happen. By contextualising it thus, we are brought self-awareness with regard to our intent, but let me make a finer distinction in that regard.
On can set the intent to observe the breath without doing anything to change the way it 'already is', or one can exert the volition control the breath. This means that intent may direct attention to 'see it as it is' without the volitional attempt to 'make it as you want it to be'. Mindfulness is the former approach be it Buddha's breath, Ramana's I or JK's truth of your mind'
In JK's case he would say see what your mind is doing as a fact. Without accepting, rejecting, judging. The pure fact of it as it is. The truth as it stands. Buddha be like watch the breath and 'know...'. Ramama be like attend to the self. All three use the self-determined intent to site the object of focus, but no of these three say 'do something'. That all use the mindful aproach of 'see it as it is'.
Of course all three of these teachers suggest 'the way' to go beyond mind....
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 29, 2020 9:32:38 GMT -5
If there is looking at the statements in your post (experiment with, not merely read), there is a ~dividing line~ in each of the collective statements of the "persons" ("lolly", Buddha, Ramana, J Krishnamurti). For Gurdjieff this ~dividing line~ is between what's mechanical (happens by itself), and what's not mechanical ( never happens by itself). In a sense yes, but it really pertains to what 'just happens' as observed and what happens as a result of volition. Hence the diad is pertains to the distinction between volitional and non-volitional more than it does the things that happen. By contextualising it thus, we are brought self-awareness with regard to our intent, but let me make a finer distinction in that regard. On can set the intent to observe the breath without doing anything to change the way it 'already is', or one can exert the volition control the breath. This means that intent may direct attention to 'see it as it is' without the volitional attempt to 'make it as you want it to be'. Mindfulness is the former approach be it Buddha's breath, Ramana's I or JK's truth of your mind' In JK's case he would say see what your mind is doing as a fact. Without accepting, rejecting, judging. The pure fact of it as it is. The truth as it stands. Buddha be like watch the breath and 'know...'. Ramama be like attend to the self. All three use the self-determined intent to site the object of focus, but no of these three say 'do something'. That all use the mindful aproach of 'see it as it is'. Of course all three of these teachers suggest 'the way' to go beyond mind....
This is the whole point of everything, the fulcrum, the crux. The dividing line. Between self and Self. The two truths.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 4, 2020 21:26:30 GMT -5
In a sense yes, but it really pertains to what 'just happens' as observed and what happens as a result of volition. Hence the diad is pertains to the distinction between volitional and non-volitional more than it does the things that happen. By contextualising it thus, we are brought self-awareness with regard to our intent, but let me make a finer distinction in that regard. On can set the intent to observe the breath without doing anything to change the way it 'already is', or one can exert the volition control the breath. This means that intent may direct attention to 'see it as it is' without the volitional attempt to 'make it as you want it to be'. Mindfulness is the former approach be it Buddha's breath, Ramana's I or JK's truth of your mind' In JK's case he would say see what your mind is doing as a fact. Without accepting, rejecting, judging. The pure fact of it as it is. The truth as it stands. Buddha be like watch the breath and 'know...'. Ramama be like attend to the self. All three use the self-determined intent to site the object of focus, but no of these three say 'do something'. That all use the mindful aproach of 'see it as it is'. Of course all three of these teachers suggest 'the way' to go beyond mind....
This is the whole point of everything, the fulcrum, the crux. The dividing line. Between self and Self. The two truths. Well there is a tendency to wander off and remember/return, and the basic trick is having no preference either way.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2020 7:46:53 GMT -5
This is the whole point of everything, the fulcrum, the crux. The dividing line. Between self and Self. The two truths. Well there is a tendency to wander off and remember/return, and the basic trick is having no preference either way. To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 5, 2020 18:42:34 GMT -5
Well there is a tendency to wander off and remember/return, and the basic trick is having no preference either way. To each his own. 'The way' is universal and is not different for every individual. For example if I talk about experience, of course, each has their own, but everyone experiences change no matter who they are.
If we talking in terms each to their own, we neglect the universal. If I talk about awareness, attention, reactivity, distraction, wandering mind etc, well, there is no your wandering and my wandering, your awareness and my awareness etc. because the principle is true for all human beings regardless of who they are.
Each to their own comes back to talking about all the techniques and saying there are many different ways, but I think I covered that by talking about how three prominent teachers suggest different techniques, but they all end up with same essence of non-volitional observation, or what JK calls choiceless observation.
So, the cessation of volition is the way. you have to 'see it as it is' and when you do that you stop 'making it as you want it to be'. This is because it regards the truth, which is universal, and by seeing what is true of yourself you're free. Problem is, you might intend to 'just watch' but you find that you can't. The mind is reacting to discomforts and desiring special experiences and every reaction is inciting the volition, and before too long you're going wild, becoming overwhelmed, and begin to suffer.
This is not the way suffering operates for one person and operates in another way for another person so 'each to their own'. It does not operate in one way for me and in another way for you. It operates in a particular way which is the same for all human beings.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2020 22:07:22 GMT -5
'The way' is universal and is not different for every individual. For example if I talk about experience, of course, each has their own, but everyone experiences change no matter who they are.
If we talking in terms each to their own, we neglect the universal. If I talk about awareness, attention, reactivity, distraction, wandering mind etc, well, there is no your wandering and my wandering, your awareness and my awareness etc. because the principle is true for all human beings regardless of who they are.
Each to their own comes back to talking about all the techniques and saying there are many different ways, but I think I covered that by talking about how three prominent teachers suggest different techniques, but they all end up with same essence of non-volitional observation, or what JK calls choiceless observation. So, the cessation of volition is the way. you have to 'see it as it is' and when you do that you stop 'making it as you want it to be'. This is because it regards the truth, which is universal, and by seeing what is true of yourself you're free. Problem is, you might intend to 'just watch' but you find that you can't. The mind is reacting to discomforts and desiring special experiences and every reaction is inciting the volition, and before too long you're going wild, becoming overwhelmed, and begin to suffer. This is not the way suffering operates for one person and operates in another way for another person so 'each to their own'. It does not operate in one way for me and in another way for you. It operates in a particular way which is the same for all human beings. This part is objective, correct, true. The rest is subjective. Everybody is not the same. We are all a mixture of truth and falsehood. The truth-part will seek the truth. The falsehood part will seek whatever validates its own self. So we are all different mixtures of truth and falsehood, some 1%-99%, some 5%-95%, some 20-80 some 80-20. So some people can never come to the truth (it's just too tall/steep a mountain to climb), some people try and fail, some people try and succeed. That's the meaning of to each his own. Sometimes subjectivity wins, sometimes objectivity wins. It cannot be otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 5, 2020 23:23:31 GMT -5
'The way' is universal and is not different for every individual. For example if I talk about experience, of course, each has their own, but everyone experiences change no matter who they are.
If we talking in terms each to their own, we neglect the universal. If I talk about awareness, attention, reactivity, distraction, wandering mind etc, well, there is no your wandering and my wandering, your awareness and my awareness etc. because the principle is true for all human beings regardless of who they are.
Each to their own comes back to talking about all the techniques and saying there are many different ways, but I think I covered that by talking about how three prominent teachers suggest different techniques, but they all end up with same essence of non-volitional observation, or what JK calls choiceless observation. So, the cessation of volition is the way. you have to 'see it as it is' and when you do that you stop 'making it as you want it to be'. This is because it regards the truth, which is universal, and by seeing what is true of yourself you're free. Problem is, you might intend to 'just watch' but you find that you can't. The mind is reacting to discomforts and desiring special experiences and every reaction is inciting the volition, and before too long you're going wild, becoming overwhelmed, and begin to suffer. This is not the way suffering operates for one person and operates in another way for another person so 'each to their own'. It does not operate in one way for me and in another way for you. It operates in a particular way which is the same for all human beings. This part is objective, correct, true. The rest is subjective. Everybody is not the same. We are all a mixture of truth and falsehood. The truth-part will seek the truth. The falsehood part will seek whatever validates its own self. So we are all different mixtures of truth and falsehood, some 1%-99%, some 5%-95%, some 20-80 some 80-20. So some people can never come to the truth (it's just too tall/steep a mountain to climb), some people try and fail, some people try and succeed. That's the meaning of to each his own. Sometimes subjectivity wins, sometimes objectivity wins. It cannot be otherwise. Ok, so we can say there is truth, a way that things work for everyone, regardless of who they are.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 6, 2020 2:44:33 GMT -5
'The way' is universal and is not different for every individual. For example if I talk about experience, of course, each has their own, but everyone experiences change no matter who they are.
If we talking in terms each to their own, we neglect the universal. If I talk about awareness, attention, reactivity, distraction, wandering mind etc, well, there is no your wandering and my wandering, your awareness and my awareness etc. because the principle is true for all human beings regardless of who they are.
Each to their own comes back to talking about all the techniques and saying there are many different ways, but I think I covered that by talking about how three prominent teachers suggest different techniques, but they all end up with same essence of non-volitional observation, or what JK calls choiceless observation. So, the cessation of volition is the way. you have to 'see it as it is' and when you do that you stop 'making it as you want it to be'. This is because it regards the truth, which is universal, and by seeing what is true of yourself you're free. Problem is, you might intend to 'just watch' but you find that you can't. The mind is reacting to discomforts and desiring special experiences and every reaction is inciting the volition, and before too long you're going wild, becoming overwhelmed, and begin to suffer. This is not the way suffering operates for one person and operates in another way for another person so 'each to their own'. It does not operate in one way for me and in another way for you. It operates in a particular way which is the same for all human beings. This part is objective, correct, true. The rest is subjective. Everybody is not the same. We are all a mixture of truth and falsehood. The truth-part will seek the truth. The falsehood part will seek whatever validates its own self. So we are all different mixtures of truth and falsehood, some 1%-99%, some 5%-95%, some 20-80 some 80-20. So some people can never come to the truth (it's just too tall/steep a mountain to climb), some people try and fail, some people try and succeed. That's the meaning of to each his own. Sometimes subjectivity wins, sometimes objectivity wins. It cannot be otherwise. What often comes up in these dialogs that I've noticed is the opposite of lolz' point here: someone will insist that a given technique is necessary. Or they might get dogmatic about a particular conceptual notion. Whenever the topic is human awareness, the topic is existential, and there is no conceptual structure that can ever capture that. So, situationally, one might point out how everyone is different, there's no set path to the existential truth, and what "worked" for one person might not "work" for the next. That's generally about refraining from projecting our own experiences onto what other people write or say. But, then again, in a different situation, one might point out how the topic of human awareness touches on a commonality of humanity: and not in any abstract, philosophical sense, but, instead, in terms of the visceral immediateness of our being, ever in the here and now. And taking still yet another step backward, we can note that there are certain traditions, like, say, for example, Zen or other Buddhist practices, that aren't really subject to this kind of fluidity. They're essentially institutions that have stood the test of time. The breadth and width of human culture and experience, is quite vast. My bible knowledge is rather thin .. was it Jesus who said: "my father's mansion, has many rooms", or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 6, 2020 6:07:30 GMT -5
This part is objective, correct, true. The rest is subjective. Everybody is not the same. We are all a mixture of truth and falsehood. The truth-part will seek the truth. The falsehood part will seek whatever validates its own self. So we are all different mixtures of truth and falsehood, some 1%-99%, some 5%-95%, some 20-80 some 80-20. So some people can never come to the truth (it's just too tall/steep a mountain to climb), some people try and fail, some people try and succeed. That's the meaning of to each his own. Sometimes subjectivity wins, sometimes objectivity wins. It cannot be otherwise. What often comes up in these dialogs that I've noticed is the opposite of lolz' point here: someone will insist that a given technique is necessary. Or they might get dogmatic about a particular conceptual notion. Whenever the topic is human awareness, the topic is existential, and there is no conceptual structure that can ever capture that. So, situationally, one might point out how everyone is different, there's no set path to the existential truth, and what "worked" for one person might not "work" for the next. That's generally about refraining from projecting our own experiences onto what other people write or say. But, then again, in a different situation, one might point out how the topic of human awareness touches on a commonality of humanity: and not in any abstract, philosophical sense, but, instead, in terms of the visceral immediateness of our being, ever in the here and now. And taking still yet another step backward, we can note that there are certain traditions, like, say, for example, Zen or other Buddhist practices, that aren't really subject to this kind of fluidity. They're essentially institutions that have stood the test of time. The breadth and width of human culture and experience, is quite vast. My bible knowledge is rather thin .. was it Jesus who said: "my father's mansion, has many rooms", or something like that? Yes. "In my father's house are many mansions" (King James translation). I've always liked that verse and what it points to. The good news is that if one is lucky enough to attain the natural state, there is no wandering, forgetting, remembering, efforting, etc. Life becomes very simple--almost childlike.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2020 6:46:29 GMT -5
This part is objective, correct, true. The rest is subjective. Everybody is not the same. We are all a mixture of truth and falsehood. The truth-part will seek the truth. The falsehood part will seek whatever validates its own self. So we are all different mixtures of truth and falsehood, some 1%-99%, some 5%-95%, some 20-80 some 80-20. So some people can never come to the truth (it's just too tall/steep a mountain to climb), some people try and fail, some people try and succeed. That's the meaning of to each his own. Sometimes subjectivity wins, sometimes objectivity wins. It cannot be otherwise. Ok, so we can say there is truth, a way that things work for everyone, regardless of who they are.
Yes. But you see, not everyone, or even many, wish to operate from truth. This is the parable of the sower, some seed fell upon hard rocky soil, and did not have a chance to germinate. Some seed fell upon shallow soil, germinated, grew a little, but still perished. Some seed fell upon rich fertile soil, grew, and eventually produced a rich harvest. Individual people are different soils. Truth is the same, but seeds need soil with the right nutrients, water, sunlight. I will come back to your previous post to write a little more on volition and non-volition. A metaphor only goes so far.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2020 6:53:47 GMT -5
What often comes up in these dialogs that I've noticed is the opposite of lolz' point here: someone will insist that a given technique is necessary. Or they might get dogmatic about a particular conceptual notion. Whenever the topic is human awareness, the topic is existential, and there is no conceptual structure that can ever capture that. So, situationally, one might point out how everyone is different, there's no set path to the existential truth, and what "worked" for one person might not "work" for the next. That's generally about refraining from projecting our own experiences onto what other people write or say. But, then again, in a different situation, one might point out how the topic of human awareness touches on a commonality of humanity: and not in any abstract, philosophical sense, but, instead, in terms of the visceral immediateness of our being, ever in the here and now. And taking still yet another step backward, we can note that there are certain traditions, like, say, for example, Zen or other Buddhist practices, that aren't really subject to this kind of fluidity. They're essentially institutions that have stood the test of time. The breadth and width of human culture and experience, is quite vast. My bible knowledge is rather thin .. was it Jesus who said: "my father's mansion, has many rooms", or something like that? Yes. "In my father's house are many mansions" (King James translation). I've always liked that verse and what it points to. The good news is that if one is lucky enough to attain the natural state, there is no wandering, forgetting, remembering, efforting, etc. Life becomes very simple--almost childlike. But it should not be a matter of luck. But sometimes luck plays a part.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2020 7:01:59 GMT -5
This part is objective, correct, true. The rest is subjective. Everybody is not the same. We are all a mixture of truth and falsehood. The truth-part will seek the truth. The falsehood part will seek whatever validates its own self. So we are all different mixtures of truth and falsehood, some 1%-99%, some 5%-95%, some 20-80 some 80-20. So some people can never come to the truth (it's just too tall/steep a mountain to climb), some people try and fail, some people try and succeed. That's the meaning of to each his own. Sometimes subjectivity wins, sometimes objectivity wins. It cannot be otherwise. What often comes up in these dialogs that I've noticed is the opposite of lolz' point here: someone will insist that a given technique is necessary. Or they might get dogmatic about a particular conceptual notion. Whenever the topic is human awareness, the topic is existential, and there is no conceptual structure that can ever capture that. So, situationally, one might point out how everyone is different, there's no set path to the existential truth, and what "worked" for one person might not "work" for the next. That's generally about refraining from projecting our own experiences onto what other people write or say. But, then again, in a different situation, one might point out how the topic of human awareness touches on a commonality of humanity: and not in any abstract, philosophical sense, but, instead, in terms of the visceral immediateness of our being, ever in the here and now. And taking still yet another step backward, we can note that there are certain traditions, like, say, for example, Zen or other Buddhist practices, that aren't really subject to this kind of fluidity. They're essentially institutions that have stood the test of time. The breadth and width of human culture and experience, is quite vast. My bible knowledge is rather thin .. was it Jesus who said: "my father's mansion, has many rooms", or something like that? This is put very well. Truth can survive cultural changes, can. But sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a reset is needed. Sometimes truth is found buried, in the dogma. "If it were not so I would have told you". JC
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2020 7:36:40 GMT -5
'The way' is universal and is not different for every individual. For example if I talk about experience, of course, each has their own, but everyone experiences change no matter who they are.
If we talking in terms each to their own, we neglect the universal. If I talk about awareness, attention, reactivity, distraction, wandering mind etc, well, there is no your wandering and my wandering, your awareness and my awareness etc. because the principle is true for all human beings regardless of who they are.
Each to their own comes back to talking about all the techniques and saying there are many different ways, but I think I covered that by talking about how three prominent teachers suggest different techniques, but they all end up with same essence of non-volitional observation, or what JK calls choiceless observation. So, the cessation of volition is the way. you have to 'see it as it is' and when you do that you stop 'making it as you want it to be'. This is because it regards the truth, which is universal, and by seeing what is true of yourself you're free. Problem is, you might intend to 'just watch' but you find that you can't. The mind is reacting to discomforts and desiring special experiences and every reaction is inciting the volition, and before too long you're going wild, becoming overwhelmed, and begin to suffer. This is not the way suffering operates for one person and operates in another way for another person so 'each to their own'. It does not operate in one way for me and in another way for you. It operates in a particular way which is the same for all human beings. How does one come to this non-volition? How does one come to this choiceless awareness? There are 7 billion people on the planet, how many come to this choicelessness? How did you come to choiceless observation? ST's is a small tight community compared to the rest of people on the internet, and people come and go. Go back 6 months (because the world is in a weird space right now). There are chefs, carpenters, attorneys, doctors, plumbers, the homeless, writers, engineers, grocery store stock people, policemen...thousands of categories of people. How did each arrive at their occupation? Now, within all these categories there are some who seek truth. What gives some the impetus to seek truth? So can it be called choiceless? If it is choiceless then how do a few out of 7 billion come to choicelessness? So is it really choiceless? So then, where is the dividing line between choice and choicelessness? So is choiceless awareness really choiceless? What you are calling volition here, is actually non-volition (mechanicalness). And choicelessness is really....? Is ATA-T choiceless observation?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2020 8:23:46 GMT -5
If there is looking at the statements in your post (experiment with, not merely read), there is a ~dividing line~ in each of the collective statements of the "persons" ("lolly", Buddha, Ramana, J Krishnamurti). For Gurdjieff this ~dividing line~ is between what's mechanical (happens by itself), and what's not mechanical ( never happens by itself). In a sense yes, but it really pertains to what 'just happens' as observed and what happens as a result of volition. Hence the diad is pertains to the distinction between volitional and non-volitional more than it does the things that happen. By contextualising it thus, we are brought self-awareness with regard to our intent, but let me make a finer distinction in that regard. One can set the intent to observe the breath without doing anything to change the way it 'already is', or one can exert the volition control the breath. This means that intent may direct attention to 'see it as it is' without the volitional attempt to 'make it as you want it to be'. Mindfulness is the former approach be it Buddha's breath, Ramana's I or JK's truth of your mind' In JK's case he would say see what your mind is doing as a fact. Without accepting, rejecting, judging. The pure fact of it as it is. The truth as it stands. Buddha be like watch the breath and 'know...'. Ramama be like attend to the self. All three use the self-determined intent to site the object of focus, but no of these three say 'do something'. That all use the mindful aproach of 'see it as it is'. Of course all three of these teachers suggest 'the way' to go beyond mind....
So what is the meaning of: "One can set the intent to observe"?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 6, 2020 8:53:48 GMT -5
Yes. "In my father's house are many mansions" (King James translation). I've always liked that verse and what it points to. The good news is that if one is lucky enough to attain the natural state, there is no wandering, forgetting, remembering, efforting, etc. Life becomes very simple--almost childlike. But it should not be a matter of luck. But sometimes luck plays a part. I use the word "luck" because some characters get a "good" role in the script, and some don't. There is no separate entity who can make an effort or generate an interest in anything. It simply appears that way from a personal perspective. There is only THIS doing whatever it does. The deeper meaning of the parable of the sower and seeds relates to the unknowability and mysteriousness of what will happen. This is the case with everything. The other day Warren Buffet told an interesting story. A lady came to him and told him that she had inherited some money and wanted his advice in investing it. Buffet asked her if she had any credit card debt. She said that she did. He advised her to first pay off all credit card debt and then whatever other debt she had before looking for things to buy. She said that she only wanted investing advice. Buffet told her that he knew of no investment that would return 18%, guaranteed, (which is what eliminating her credit card carrying charges would instantly yield). Buffet concluded his story by saying, "She wasn't interested in my advice." Some soil is fertile and other soil is not.
|
|