Being implies within and all (perceivable) moving through each one (perception) allows expression from within outwards..."but" inverts that, and many use it to "butt in" aka interrupt/interfere with one another.
Whatever ones writes after "but" is based on an inversion. Meanwhile...if all, then each one within...no buts.
From a christian perspective...how could one use "but" in response to God?
b) Having implies putting the yoke around self by taking possession within self...which is easy because it implies falling for the temptation of choosing want (to hold onto) over need (to let go of). Choosing to let go of what one has...that's hard.
I have no need to trade it for any thing the world provides.
a) Suggesting "I have no" implies taking possession over self (I), while denying (nihilo; nothing) that all provides each ones potential by separation from one another during procession.
b) Trading implies with one another aka buying (consent) and selling (suggestion), which makes one a trader/traitor to all (perceivable) giving each one (perception) the FREE will of choice to evaluate moving value.
c) Thing implies everything separating into each thing, which trading within one another contradicts through a contract.
d) Being implies want (temporary growth) within need (ongoing loss)...hence the need to resist want at the moment(um) of being.
If one suggests "I have all I need", then one ignores being want, hence being tempted by one another within all need...it's the suggestion to one another which draws temptation closer to each other, while binding consenting choice into a contract (religion aka re-ligo aka response to bondage).
a) But/butan - "from without"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/but
Being implies within and all (perceivable) moving through each one (perception) allows expression from within outwards..."but" inverts that, and many use it to "butt in" aka interrupt/interfere with one another.
Whatever ones writes after "but" is based on an inversion. Meanwhile...if all, then each one within...no buts.
From a christian perspective...how could one use "but" in response to God?
b) Having implies putting the yoke around self by taking possession within self...which is easy because it implies falling for the temptation of choosing want (to hold onto) over need (to let go of). Choosing to let go of what one has...that's hard.
a) Suggesting "I have no" implies taking possession over self (I), while denying (nihilo; nothing) that all provides each ones potential by separation from one another during procession.
b) Trading implies with one another aka buying (consent) and selling (suggestion), which makes one a trader/traitor to all (perceivable) giving each one (perception) the FREE will of choice to evaluate moving value.
c) Thing implies everything separating into each thing, which trading within one another contradicts through a contract.
d) Being implies want (temporary growth) within need (ongoing loss)...hence the need to resist want at the moment(um) of being.
If one suggests "I have all I need", then one ignores being want, hence being tempted by one another within all need...it's the suggestion to one another which draws temptation closer to each other, while binding consenting choice into a contract (religion aka re-ligo aka response to bondage).