--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --In other words, most descriptions of E. are fraught with a degree > of error; and/or are incomplete, and may include contradictions. > Nevertheless, it's amusing and sometimes informative to try!
Sure. What I was pointing out, though, was that Barry has this problem with his little lectures falling into infinite regresses. > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I worked with a teacher for many years who per- > > > sonified the "I can't tell you the 'truth' about > > > enlightenment because there IS no 'truth' about > > > enlightenment that can be put into words" philos- > > > ophy I have been rappin' about recently. > > <snip> > > > And so what happened, with all the care that he > > > took to make this point -- over and over and over > > > and over and over, for almost two decades? Many > > > of his former students regularly do *exactly* > > > what he told them not to. They glom onto some > > > quote, delivered in a particular context, to a > > > particular audience, from and about a particular > > > state of consciousness, and they try to turn it > > > into some cosmic "rule" or "guideline" or piece > > > of incontrovertible dogma. Go figure. > > > > You mean, a quote like: "I can't tell you the > > 'truth' about enlightenment because there IS > > no 'truth' about enlightenment that can be put > > into words"?
